165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24571185)
21. A Bayesian phase I-II clinical trial design to find the biological optimal dose on drug combination.
Wang Z; Zhang J; Xia T; He R; Yan F
J Biopharm Stat; 2024 Jul; 34(4):582-595. PubMed ID: 37461311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs.
Thall PF; Cook JD
Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):684-93. PubMed ID: 15339291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Statistical designs for early phases of cancer clinical trials.
Guan S
J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(6):1109-26. PubMed ID: 23075011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A Bayesian approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial.
Bekele BN; Shen Y
Biometrics; 2005 Jun; 61(2):343-54. PubMed ID: 16011680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Modelling semi-attributable toxicity in dual-agent phase I trials with non-concurrent drug administration.
Wheeler GM; Sweeting MJ; Mander AP; Lee SM; Cheung YK
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):225-241. PubMed ID: 26891942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. uTPI: A utility-based toxicity probability interval design for phase I/II dose-finding trials.
Shi H; Cao J; Yuan Y; Lin R
Stat Med; 2021 May; 40(11):2626-2649. PubMed ID: 33650708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A Bayesian adaptive Phase I-II clinical trial for evaluating efficacy and toxicity with delayed outcomes.
Koopmeiners JS; Modiano J
Clin Trials; 2014 Feb; 11(1):38-48. PubMed ID: 24082004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Designs for phase I trials in ordered groups.
Conaway MR; Wages NA
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):254-265. PubMed ID: 27624880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Bayesian optimization design for dose-finding based on toxicity and efficacy outcomes in phase I/II clinical trials.
Takahashi A; Suzuki T
Pharm Stat; 2021 May; 20(3):422-439. PubMed ID: 33258282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Utility-based optimization of combination therapy using ordinal toxicity and efficacy in phase I/II trials.
Houede N; Thall PF; Nguyen H; Paoletti X; Kramar A
Biometrics; 2010 Jun; 66(2):532-40. PubMed ID: 19673865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy.
Zhang W; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar S
Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(14):2365-83. PubMed ID: 16220478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. An adaptive trial design to optimize dose-schedule regimes with delayed outcomes.
Lin R; Thall PF; Yuan Y
Biometrics; 2020 Mar; 76(1):304-315. PubMed ID: 31273750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A parallel phase I/II clinical trial design for combination therapies.
Huang X; Biswas S; Oki Y; Issa JP; Berry DA
Biometrics; 2007 Jun; 63(2):429-36. PubMed ID: 17688495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations.
Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):380-9. PubMed ID: 21652689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A dose-finding approach for genomic patterns in phase I trials.
Kaneko S; Hirakawa A; Kakurai Y; Hamada C
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):834-853. PubMed ID: 32310707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Designs for single- or multiple-agent phase I trials.
Conaway MR; Dunbar S; Peddada SD
Biometrics; 2004 Sep; 60(3):661-9. PubMed ID: 15339288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A default method to specify skeletons for Bayesian model averaging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials.
Pan H; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):266-279. PubMed ID: 26991076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Phase I/II adaptive design for drug combination oncology trials.
Wages NA; Conaway MR
Stat Med; 2014 May; 33(12):1990-2003. PubMed ID: 24470329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
