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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23251419)

  • 1. Efficiency of new dose escalation designs in dose-finding phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents.
    Le Tourneau C; Gan HK; Razak AR; Paoletti X
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(12):e51039. PubMed ID: 23251419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Accelerated titration designs for phase I clinical trials in oncology.
    Simon R; Freidlin B; Rubinstein L; Arbuck SG; Collins J; Christian MC
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1997 Aug; 89(15):1138-47. PubMed ID: 9262252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial.
    Garrett-Mayer E
    Clin Trials; 2006; 3(1):57-71. PubMed ID: 16539090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of phase I dose-finding designs in clinical trials with monotonicity assumption violation.
    Abbas R; Rossoni C; Jaki T; Paoletti X; Mozgunov P
    Clin Trials; 2020 Oct; 17(5):522-534. PubMed ID: 32631095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.
    Wheeler GM; Mander AP; Bedding A; Brock K; Cornelius V; Grieve AP; Jaki T; Love SB; Odondi L; Weir CJ; Yap C; Bond SJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):18. PubMed ID: 30658575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. "Classical 3 + 3 design" versus "accelerated titration designs": analysis of 270 phase 1 trials investigating anti-cancer agents.
    Penel N; Isambert N; Leblond P; Ferte C; Duhamel A; Bonneterre J
    Invest New Drugs; 2009 Dec; 27(6):552-6. PubMed ID: 19132294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Adaptive dose-finding studies: a review of model-guided phase I clinical trials.
    Iasonos A; O'Quigley J
    J Clin Oncol; 2014 Aug; 32(23):2505-11. PubMed ID: 24982451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Improvements to the Escalation with Overdose Control design and a comparison with the restricted Continual Reassessment Method.
    Ji L; Lewinger JP; Krailo M; Groshen S; Conti DV; Asgharzadeh S; Sposto R
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Nov; 18(6):659-670. PubMed ID: 31237419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. CRM2DIM: A SAS macro for implementing the dual-agent Bayesian continual reassessment method.
    Bayar MA; Ivanova A; Le Teuff G
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2019 Jul; 176():211-223. PubMed ID: 31200907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Beyond the 3+3 method: expanded algorithms for dose- escalation in Phase I oncology trials of two agents.
    Braun TM; Alonzo TA
    Clin Trials; 2011 Jun; 8(3):247-59. PubMed ID: 21730075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs.
    Ahn C
    Stat Med; 1998 Jul; 17(14):1537-49. PubMed ID: 9699228
    [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. 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]  

  • 20. Would the Recommended Dose Have Been Different Using Novel Dose-Finding Designs? Comparing Dose-Finding Designs in Published Trials.
    Silva RB; Yap C; Carvajal R; Lee SM
    JCO Precis Oncol; 2021; 5():. PubMed ID: 34250415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.