BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25710960)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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. Integrating the escalation and dose expansion studies into a unified Phase I clinical trial.
    Iasonos A; O'Quigley J
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2016 Sep; 50():124-34. PubMed ID: 27393122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Adaptive dose finding for phase I clinical trials of drugs used for chemotherapy of cancer.
    Potter DM
    Stat Med; 2002 Jul; 21(13):1805-23. PubMed ID: 12111891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Statistical controversies in clinical research: building the bridge to phase II-efficacy estimation in dose-expansion cohorts.
    Boonstra PS; Braun TM; Taylor JMG; Kidwell KM; Bellile EL; Daignault S; Zhao L; Griffith KA; Lawrence TS; Kalemkerian GP; Schipper MJ
    Ann Oncol; 2017 Jul; 28(7):1427-1435. PubMed ID: 28200082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Toxicity equivalence range design (TEQR): a practical Phase I design.
    Blanchard MS; Longmate JA
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2011 Jan; 32(1):114-21. PubMed ID: 20923709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.