These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

282 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. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 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. U-PRO-CRM: designing patient-centred dose-finding trials with patient-reported outcomes.
    Alger E; Lee SM; Cheung YK; Yap C
    ESMO Open; 2024 Jul; 9(7):103626. PubMed ID: 38968929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.