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 *

64 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26033644)

  • 1. An approach to confirmatory testing of subpopulations in clinical trials.
    Glimm E; Di Scala L
    Biom J; 2015 Sep; 57(5):897-913. PubMed ID: 26033644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Adaptive designs for subpopulation analysis optimizing utility functions.
    Graf AC; Posch M; Koenig F
    Biom J; 2015 Jan; 57(1):76-89. PubMed ID: 25399844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Statistical testing strategies for assessing treatment efficacy and marker accuracy in phase III trials.
    Nonaka T; Igeta M; Matsui S
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Jul; 18(4):459-475. PubMed ID: 30838777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology.
    Brannath W; Zuber E; Branson M; Bretz F; Gallo P; Posch M; Racine-Poon A
    Stat Med; 2009 May; 28(10):1445-63. PubMed ID: 19266565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A multiple comparison procedure for dose-finding trials with subpopulations.
    Thomas M; Bornkamp B; Posch M; König F
    Biom J; 2020 Jan; 62(1):53-68. PubMed ID: 31544265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison of methods for adaptive treatment selection.
    Friede T; Stallard N
    Biom J; 2008 Oct; 50(5):767-81. PubMed ID: 18932136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Robustness of testing procedures for confirmatory subpopulation analyses based on a continuous biomarker.
    Graf AC; Wassmer G; Friede T; Gera RG; Posch M
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Jun; 28(6):1879-1892. PubMed ID: 29888651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of statistical analysis plans in randomize-all phase III trials with a predictive biomarker.
    Matsui S; Choai Y; Nonaka T
    Clin Cancer Res; 2014 Jun; 20(11):2820-30. PubMed ID: 24691019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Targeting population entering phase III trials: a new stratified adaptive phase II design.
    Tournoux-Facon C; De Rycke Y; Tubert-Bitter P
    Stat Med; 2011 Apr; 30(8):801-11. PubMed ID: 21432875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Adaptive randomization for multiarm comparative clinical trials based on joint efficacy/toxicity outcomes.
    Ji Y; Bekele BN
    Biometrics; 2009 Sep; 65(3):876-84. PubMed ID: 19173694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Simultaneous confidence intervals using ordinal effect measures for ordered categorical outcomes.
    Ryu E
    Stat Med; 2009 Nov; 28(25):3179-88. PubMed ID: 19691062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A note on the power of Fisher's least significant difference procedure.
    Meier U
    Pharm Stat; 2006; 5(4):253-63. PubMed ID: 17128424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Model-based prediction of phase III overall survival in colorectal cancer on the basis of phase II tumor dynamics.
    Claret L; Girard P; Hoff PM; Van Cutsem E; Zuideveld KP; Jorga K; Fagerberg J; Bruno R
    J Clin Oncol; 2009 Sep; 27(25):4103-8. PubMed ID: 19636014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistical design for a confirmatory trial with a continuous predictive biomarker: A case study.
    Joshi A; Zhang J; Fang L
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2017 Dec; 63():19-29. PubMed ID: 28522422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints.
    Jenkins M; Stone A; Jennison C
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(4):347-56. PubMed ID: 22328327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Estimating reliability and generalizability from hierarchical biomedical data.
    Molenberghs G; Laenen A; Vangeneugden T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(4):595-627. PubMed ID: 17613644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A risk management approach for imaging biomarker-driven clinical trials in oncology.
    Liu Y; deSouza NM; Shankar LK; Kauczor HU; Trattnig S; Collette S; Chiti A
    Lancet Oncol; 2015 Dec; 16(16):e622-8. PubMed ID: 26678215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Interim futility analysis with intermediate endpoints.
    Goldman B; LeBlanc M; Crowley J
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(1):14-22. PubMed ID: 18283075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Personalized treatment for patients with colorectal cancer: role of biomarkers.
    Duffy MJ
    Biomark Med; 2015; 9(4):337-47. PubMed ID: 25808438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial.
    Le Tourneau C; Delord JP; Gonçalves A; Gavoille C; Dubot C; Isambert N; Campone M; Trédan O; Massiani MA; Mauborgne C; Armanet S; Servant N; Bièche I; Bernard V; Gentien D; Jezequel P; Attignon V; Boyault S; Vincent-Salomon A; Servois V; Sablin MP; Kamal M; Paoletti X;
    Lancet Oncol; 2015 Oct; 16(13):1324-34. PubMed ID: 26342236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.