330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25710960)
21. Dose-escalation designs in oncology: ADEPT and the CRM.
Shu J; O'Quigley J
Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5345-53; discussion 5354-5. PubMed ID: 18752259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Design considerations for dose-expansion cohorts in phase I trials.
Iasonos A; O'Quigley J
J Clin Oncol; 2013 Nov; 31(31):4014-21. PubMed ID: 24101039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A Bayesian evaluation of enrolling additional patients at the maximum tolerated dose in Phase I trials.
Gönen M
Contemp Clin Trials; 2005 Apr; 26(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 15837436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. 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]
28. Retrospective robustness of the continual reassessment method.
O'Quigley J; Zohar S
J Biopharm Stat; 2010 Sep; 20(5):1013-25. PubMed ID: 20721788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials.
Ishizuka N; Ohashi Y
Stat Med; 2001 Sep 15-30; 20(17-18):2661-81. PubMed ID: 11523075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Phase I oncology trials incorporating patient choice of dose.
Huson LW
Br J Cancer; 2012 Sep; 107(7):1022-4. PubMed ID: 22929891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A two-stage dose selection strategy in phase I trials with wide dose ranges.
Wang O; Faries DE
J Biopharm Stat; 2000 Aug; 10(3):319-33. PubMed ID: 10959914
[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. Consistency of the CRM when the dose-toxicity curve is not monotone and its application to the POCRM.
Saha PT; Fine JP; Ivanova A
Stat Med; 2021 Apr; 40(8):2073-2082. PubMed ID: 33588519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials.
Piantadosi S; Fisher JD; Grossman S
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol; 1998; 41(6):429-36. PubMed ID: 9554585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Performance of two-stage continual reassessment method relative to an optimal benchmark.
Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
Clin Trials; 2013; 10(6):862-75. PubMed ID: 24085776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Bridging continual reassessment method for phase I clinical trials in different ethnic populations.
Liu S; Pan H; Xia J; Huang Q; Yuan Y
Stat Med; 2015 May; 34(10):1681-94. PubMed ID: 25626429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
