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 *

319 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27581751)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The continual reassessment method for multiple toxicity grades: a bayesian model selection approach.
    Pan H; Zhu C; Zhang F; Yuan Y; Zhang S; Zhang W; Li C; Wang L; Xia J
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e98147. PubMed ID: 24875783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Posterior maximization and averaging for Bayesian working model choice in the continual reassessment method.
    Daimon T; Zohar S; O'Quigley J
    Stat Med; 2011 Jun; 30(13):1563-73. PubMed ID: 21351288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The continual reassessment method: comparison of Bayesian stopping rules for dose-ranging studies.
    Zohar S; Chevret S
    Stat Med; 2001 Oct; 20(19):2827-43. PubMed ID: 11568943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Application of the continual reassessment method to a phase I dose-finding trial in Japanese patients: East meets West.
    Morita S
    Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2090-7. PubMed ID: 21500239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.