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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28300466)

  • 21. Adaptive designs for dose-finding in non-cancer phase II trials: influence of early unexpected outcomes.
    Resche-Rigon M; Zohar S; Chevret S
    Clin Trials; 2008; 5(6):595-606. PubMed ID: 19029208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. U-PRO-CRM: designing patient-centred dose-finding trials with patient-reported outcomes.
    Alger E; Lee SM; Cheung YK; Yap C
    ESMO Open; 2024 Jul; 9(7):103626. PubMed ID: 38968929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. The rapid enrollment design for Phase I clinical trials.
    Ivanova A; Wang Y; Foster MC
    Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(15):2516-24. PubMed ID: 26833922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. An evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs in the continuous dose-response setting.
    Storer BE
    Stat Med; 2001 Aug; 20(16):2399-408. PubMed ID: 11512130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Systematic comparison of the statistical operating characteristics of various Phase I oncology designs.
    Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Chang M; Doros G; Massaro J; LaValley M
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2017 Mar; 5():34-48. PubMed ID: 29740620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Efficiency of new dose escalation designs in dose-finding phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents.
    Le Tourneau C; Gan HK; Razak AR; Paoletti X
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(12):e51039. PubMed ID: 23251419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Retrospective analysis of sequential dose-finding designs.
    O'Quigley J
    Biometrics; 2005 Sep; 61(3):749-56. PubMed ID: 16135026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Incorporating lower grade toxicity information into dose finding designs.
    Iasonos A; Zohar S; O'Quigley J
    Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):370-9. PubMed ID: 21835856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The superiority of the time-to-event continual reassessment method to the rolling six design in pediatric oncology Phase I trials.
    Zhao L; Lee J; Mody R; Braun TM
    Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):361-9. PubMed ID: 21610004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Specifications of a continual reassessment method design for phase I trials of combined drugs.
    Wages NA; Conaway MR
    Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):217-24. PubMed ID: 23729323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Beyond the 3+3 method: expanded algorithms for dose- escalation in Phase I oncology trials of two agents.
    Braun TM; Alonzo TA
    Clin Trials; 2011 Jun; 8(3):247-59. PubMed ID: 21730075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. CRM and partial order CRM with adaptive rescaling for dose-finding in immunotherapy trials with a continuous outcome.
    Saha PT; Fine JP; Ivanova A
    Stat Med; 2023 Jun; 42(14):2409-2419. PubMed ID: 37012897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Multi-stage dose expansion cohort (MSDEC) design with Bayesian stopping rule.
    Wang S; Tan M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2022 Jul; 32(4):600-612. PubMed ID: 35699319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A hybrid Bayesian adaptive design for dose response trials.
    Chang M; Chow SC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(4):677-91. PubMed ID: 16022172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Improvements to the Escalation with Overdose Control design and a comparison with the restricted Continual Reassessment Method.
    Ji L; Lewinger JP; Krailo M; Groshen S; Conti DV; Asgharzadeh S; Sposto R
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Nov; 18(6):659-670. PubMed ID: 31237419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.