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 *

217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23251419)

  • 21. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method.
    Van Meter EM; Garrett-Mayer E; Bandyopadhyay D
    Clin Trials; 2012 Jun; 9(3):303-13. PubMed ID: 22547420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Model-guided determination of maximum tolerated dose in phase I clinical trials: evidence for increased precision.
    Mick R; Ratain MJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1993 Feb; 85(3):217-23. PubMed ID: 8423626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Estimating the dose-toxicity curve in completed phase I studies.
    Iasonos A; Ostrovnaya I
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2117-29. PubMed ID: 21341302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Sequential or combined designs for Phase I/II clinical trials? A simulation study.
    Rossoni C; Bardet A; Geoerger B; Paoletti X
    Clin Trials; 2019 Dec; 16(6):635-644. PubMed ID: 31538815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. SPA: Single patient acceleration in oncology dose-escalation trials.
    Mi G; Bian Y; Wang X; Zhang W
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Jun; 105():106378. PubMed ID: 33823296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Selection of the initial design for the two-stage continual reassessment method.
    Jia X; Ivanova A; Lee SM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(3):495-506. PubMed ID: 28300466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison between continuous and discrete doses for model based designs in cancer dose finding.
    Diniz MA; Tighiouart M; Rogatko A
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0210139. PubMed ID: 30625194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Phase I cancer trials methodology].
    Le Tourneau C; Faivre S; Raymond E; Diéras V
    Bull Cancer; 2007 Nov; 94(11):943-51. PubMed ID: 18055311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The impact of non-drug-related toxicities on the estimation of the maximum tolerated dose in phase I trials.
    Iasonos A; Gounder M; Spriggs DR; Gerecitano JF; Hyman DM; Zohar S; O'Quigley J
    Clin Cancer Res; 2012 Oct; 18(19):5179-87. PubMed ID: 22825582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Performance of phase-I dose finding designs with and without a run-in intra-patient dose escalation stage.
    Labrenz J; Edelmann D; Heitmann JS; Salih HR; Kopp-Schneider A; Schlenk RF
    Pharm Stat; 2023 Mar; 22(2):236-247. PubMed ID: 36285348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint.
    Hunsberger S; Rubinstein LV; Dancey J; Korn EL
    Stat Med; 2005 Jul; 24(14):2171-81. PubMed ID: 15909289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Hierarchical models for sharing information across populations in phase I dose-escalation studies.
    Cunanan KM; Koopmeiners JS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Nov; 27(11):3447-3459. PubMed ID: 28480828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. GUIP1: a R package for dose escalation strategies in phase I cancer clinical trials.
    Dinart D; Fraisse J; Tosi D; Mauguen A; Touraine C; Gourgou S; Le Deley MC; Bellera C; Mollevi C
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2020 Jun; 20(1):134. PubMed ID: 32580715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Continual reassessment method with regularization in phase I clinical trials.
    Li X; Ivanova A; Tian H; Lim P; Liu K
    J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Nov; 30(6):964-978. PubMed ID: 32926652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Designing and evaluating dose-escalation studies made easy: The MoDEsT web app.
    Pallmann P; Wan F; Mander AP; Wheeler GM; Yap C; Clive S; Hampson LV; Jaki T
    Clin Trials; 2020 Apr; 17(2):147-156. PubMed ID: 31856600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.