458 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24464821)
1. Competing designs for drug combination in phase I dose-finding clinical trials.
Riviere MK; Dubois F; Zohar S
Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 24464821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Small-sample behavior of novel phase I cancer trial designs.
Oron AP; Hoff PD
Clin Trials; 2013 Feb; 10(1):63-80. PubMed ID: 23345304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Escalation with overdose control for phase I drug-combination trials.
Shi Y; Yin G
Stat Med; 2013 Nov; 32(25):4400-12. PubMed ID: 23630103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Phase I trial design for drug combinations with Bayesian model averaging.
Jin IH; Huo L; Yin G; Yuan Y
Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(2):108-19. PubMed ID: 25641851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A practical Bayesian design to identify the maximum tolerated dose contour for drug combination trials.
Zhang L; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2016 Nov; 35(27):4924-4936. PubMed ID: 27580928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An adaptive model switching approach for phase I dose-finding trials.
Daimon T; Zohar S
Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):225-32. PubMed ID: 23801550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dose finding with continuous outcome in phase I oncology trials.
Wang Y; Ivanova A
Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(2):102-7. PubMed ID: 25408518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Two-dimensional dose finding in discrete dose space.
Wang K; Ivanova A
Biometrics; 2005 Mar; 61(1):217-22. PubMed ID: 15737096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Keyboard design for phase I drug-combination trials.
Pan H; Lin R; Zhou Y; Yuan Y
Contemp Clin Trials; 2020 May; 92():105972. PubMed ID: 32151751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Repeated measures dose-finding design with time-trend detection in the presence of correlated toxicity data.
Yin J; Paoletti X; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar SJ
Clin Trials; 2017 Dec; 14(6):611-620. PubMed ID: 28764555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Bayesian dose-finding designs for combination of molecularly targeted agents assuming partial stochastic ordering.
Guo B; Li Y
Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):859-75. PubMed ID: 25413162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dose-finding design using mixed-effect proportional odds model for longitudinal graded toxicity data in phase I oncology clinical trials.
Doussau A; Thiébaut R; Paoletti X
Stat Med; 2013 Dec; 32(30):5430-47. PubMed ID: 24018535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Performance of toxicity probability interval based designs in contrast to the continual reassessment method.
Horton BJ; Wages NA; Conaway MR
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 27435150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. A non-parametric approach to the design and analysis of two-dimensional dose-finding trials.
Ivanova A; Wang K
Stat Med; 2004 Jun; 23(12):1861-70. PubMed ID: 15195320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An adaptive multi-stage phase I dose-finding design incorporating continuous efficacy and toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.
Du Y; Yin J; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar SJ
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):271-286. PubMed ID: 30403559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
