287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20298812)
1. A simulation-based comparison of the traditional method, Rolling-6 design and a frequentist version of the continual reassessment method with special attention to trial duration in pediatric Phase I oncology trials.
Onar-Thomas A; Xiong Z
Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 May; 31(3):259-70. PubMed ID: 20298812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The superiority of the time-to-event continual reassessment method to the rolling six design in pediatric oncology Phase I trials.
Zhao L; Lee J; Mody R; Braun TM
Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):361-9. PubMed ID: 21610004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies.
James GD; Symeonides S; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
BMC Cancer; 2021 Jan; 21(1):7. PubMed ID: 33402104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Continual reassessment method for dose escalation clinical trials in oncology: a comparison of prior skeleton approaches using AZD3514 data.
James GD; Symeonides SN; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
BMC Cancer; 2016 Aug; 16(1):703. PubMed ID: 27581751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework.
Doussau A; Asselain B; Le Deley MC; Geoerger B; Doz F; Vassal G; Paoletti X
Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):657-65. PubMed ID: 22521954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Rolling continual reassessment method with overdose control: An efficient and safe dose escalation design.
Zhu J; Sabanés Bové D; Liao Z; Beyer U; Yung G; Sarkar S
Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Aug; 107():106436. PubMed ID: 34000410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison of model choices for the Continual Reassessment Method in phase I cancer trials.
Paoletti X; Kramar A
Stat Med; 2009 Oct; 28(24):3012-28. PubMed ID: 19672839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A new pragmatic design for dose escalation in phase 1 clinical trials using an adaptive continual reassessment method.
North B; Kocher HM; Sasieni P
BMC Cancer; 2019 Jun; 19(1):632. PubMed ID: 31242873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimal phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology--a simulation study.
Gerke O; Siedentop H
Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5329-44. PubMed ID: 17849502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method.
Normolle D; Lawrence T
J Clin Oncol; 2006 Sep; 24(27):4426-33. PubMed ID: 16983110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Three-dose-cohort designs in cancer phase I trials.
Huang B; Chappell R
Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2070-93. PubMed ID: 17764082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The 3 + 3 design in dose-finding studies with small sample sizes: Pitfalls and possible remedies.
Chiuzan C; Dehbi HM
Clin Trials; 2024 Jun; 21(3):350-357. PubMed ID: 38618916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. R-TPI: rolling toxicity probability interval design to shorten the duration and maintain safety of phase I trials.
Guo W; Ji Y; Li D
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):411-424. PubMed ID: 30744484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies.
Iasonos A; Wilton AS; Riedel ER; Seshan VE; Spriggs DR
Clin Trials; 2008; 5(5):465-77. PubMed ID: 18827039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Continual reassessment method vs. traditional empirically based design: modifications motivated by Phase I trials in pediatric oncology by the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium.
Onar A; Kocak M; Boyett JM
J Biopharm Stat; 2009; 19(3):437-55. PubMed ID: 19384687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Systematic comparison of the statistical operating characteristics of various Phase I oncology designs.
Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Chang M; Doros G; Massaro J; LaValley M
Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2017 Mar; 5():34-48. PubMed ID: 29740620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials.
Faries D
J Biopharm Stat; 1994 Jul; 4(2):147-64. PubMed ID: 7951271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase I clinical trials.
Boonstra PS; Shen J; Taylor JM; Braun TM; Griffith KA; Daignault S; Kalemkerian GP; Lawrence TS; Schipper MJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Mar; 107(3):. PubMed ID: 25710960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Model of a Queuing Approach for Patient Accrual in Phase 1 Oncology Studies.
Frankel PH; Chung V; Tuscano J; Siddiqi T; Sampath S; Longmate J; Groshen S; Newman EM
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 May; 3(5):e204787. PubMed ID: 32401317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Randomized CRM: An Approach to Overcoming the Long-Memory Property of the CRM.
Koopmeiners JS; Wey A
J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(6):1028-1042. PubMed ID: 28340333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
