219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19545996)
1. Clinical benefit in oncology trials: is this a patient-centred or tumour-centred end-point?
Ohorodnyk P; Eisenhauer EA; Booth CM
Eur J Cancer; 2009 Sep; 45(13):2249-52. PubMed ID: 19545996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Lessons learned from independent central review.
Ford R; Schwartz L; Dancey J; Dodd LE; Eisenhauer EA; Gwyther S; Rubinstein L; Sargent D; Shankar L; Therasse P; Verweij J
Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jan; 45(2):268-74. PubMed ID: 19101138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reporting of time-to-event end points and tracking of failures in randomized trials of radiotherapy with or without any concomitant anticancer agent for locally advanced head and neck cancer.
Le Tourneau C; Michiels S; Gan HK; Siu LL
J Clin Oncol; 2009 Dec; 27(35):5965-71. PubMed ID: 19805677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Survival end point reporting in randomized cancer clinical trials: a review of major journals.
Mathoulin-Pelissier S; Gourgou-Bourgade S; Bonnetain F; Kramar A
J Clin Oncol; 2008 Aug; 26(22):3721-6. PubMed ID: 18669458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades.
Booth CM; Cescon DW; Wang L; Tannock IF; Krzyzanowska MK
J Clin Oncol; 2008 Nov; 26(33):5458-64. PubMed ID: 18955452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Breast cancer patients' attitudes toward clinical trials in the radiation oncology clinic versus those searching for trial information on the Internet.
Dolinsky CM; Wei SJ; Hampshire MK; Metz JM
Breast J; 2006; 12(4):324-30. PubMed ID: 16848841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Tumor shrinkage and objective response rates: gold standard for oncology efficacy screening trials, or an outdated end point?
Bradbury P; Seymour L
Cancer J; 2009; 15(5):354-60. PubMed ID: 19826353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Stable disease is a valid end point in clinical trials.
Tolcher AW
Cancer J; 2009; 15(5):374-8. PubMed ID: 19826356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Quality of clinical trials in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.
Walter T; Krzyzanowska MK
Neuroendocrinology; 2012; 96(3):238-48. PubMed ID: 22414794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Clinical prediction in medical oncology].
González Barón M
An R Acad Nac Med (Madr); 2003; 120(1):135-51; discussion 151-3. PubMed ID: 14560556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation.
Ratain MJ; Sargent DJ
Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jan; 45(2):275-80. PubMed ID: 19059773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Review of phase II trial designs used in studies of molecular targeted agents: outcomes and predictors of success in phase III.
El-Maraghi RH; Eisenhauer EA
J Clin Oncol; 2008 Mar; 26(8):1346-54. PubMed ID: 18285606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria.
Bogaerts J; Ford R; Sargent D; Schwartz LH; Rubinstein L; Lacombe D; Eisenhauer E; Verweij J; Therasse P;
Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jan; 45(2):248-60. PubMed ID: 19095437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Randomized Phase III controlled trials of therapy in malignant glioma: where are we after 40 years?
Anderson E; Grant R; Lewis SC; Whittle IR
Br J Neurosurg; 2008 Jun; 22(3):339-49. PubMed ID: 18568722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Five-year change in statistical designs of phase II trials published in leading cancer journals.
Thezenas S; Duffour J; Culine S; Kramar A
Eur J Cancer; 2004 May; 40(8):1244-9. PubMed ID: 15110889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Anthracycline- and/or taxane-resistant breast cancer: results of a literature review to determine the clinical challenges and current treatment trends.
Moreno-Aspitia A; Perez EA
Clin Ther; 2009 Aug; 31(8):1619-40. PubMed ID: 19808124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Phase II trials published in 2002: a cross-specialty comparison showing significant design differences between oncology trials and other medical specialties.
Michaelis LC; Ratain MJ
Clin Cancer Res; 2007 Apr; 13(8):2400-5. PubMed ID: 17438099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A global ranking approach to end points in trials of mechanical circulatory support devices.
Felker GM; Anstrom KJ; Rogers JG
J Card Fail; 2008 Jun; 14(5):368-72. PubMed ID: 18514927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Novel designs and end points for phase II clinical trials.
Adjei AA; Christian M; Ivy P
Clin Cancer Res; 2009 Mar; 15(6):1866-72. PubMed ID: 19276272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Biological surrogate end-points in cancer trials: potential uses, benefits and pitfalls.
Cooper R; Kaanders JH
Eur J Cancer; 2005 Jun; 41(9):1261-6. PubMed ID: 15939261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
