144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29696160)
1. Extensions of the mTPI and TEQR designs to include non-monotone efficacy in addition to toxicity for optimal dose determination for early phase immunotherapy oncology trials.
Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Li D; LaValley M
Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2018 Jun; 10():62-76. PubMed ID: 29696160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 2D (2 Dimensional) TEQR design for Determining the optimal Dose for safety and efficacy.
Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Li D; LaValley M
Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2019 Dec; 16():100461. PubMed ID: 31799471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Design considerations for phase I/II dose finding clinical trials in Immuno-oncology and cell therapy.
Liu R; Lin J; Li P
Contemp Clin Trials; 2020 Sep; 96():106083. PubMed ID: 32659438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A Bayesian interval dose-finding design addressingOckham's razor: mTPI-2.
Guo W; Wang SJ; Yang S; Lynn H; Ji Y
Contemp Clin Trials; 2017 Jul; 58():23-33. PubMed ID: 28458054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Revisiting isotonic phase I design in the era of model-assisted dose-finding.
Wages NA; Conaway MR
Clin Trials; 2018 Oct; 15(5):524-529. PubMed ID: 30101616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy, Safety, and Reliability of Novel Phase I Trial Designs.
Zhou H; Yuan Y; Nie L
Clin Cancer Res; 2018 Sep; 24(18):4357-4364. PubMed ID: 29661774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. TEPI-2 and UBI: designs for optimal immuno-oncology and cell therapy dose finding with toxicity and efficacy.
Li P; Liu R; Lin J; Ji Y
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Nov; 30(6):979-992. PubMed ID: 32951518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An overview of the BOIN design and its current extensions for novel early-phase oncology trials.
Ananthakrishnan R; Lin R; He C; Chen Y; Li D; LaValley M
Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2022 Aug; 28():100943. PubMed ID: 35812822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Probability intervals of toxicity and efficacy design for dose-finding clinical trials in oncology.
Lin X; Ji Y
Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Mar; 30(3):843-856. PubMed ID: 33327870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. STEIN: A simple toxicity and efficacy interval design for seamless phase I/II clinical trials.
Lin R; Yin G
Stat Med; 2017 Nov; 36(26):4106-4120. PubMed ID: 28786138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A robust two-stage design identifying the optimal biological dose for phase I/II clinical trials.
Zang Y; Lee JJ
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(1):27-42. PubMed ID: 27538818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Toxicity and Efficacy Probability Interval Design for Phase I Adoptive Cell Therapy Dose-Finding Clinical Trials.
Li DH; Whitmore JB; Guo W; Ji Y
Clin Cancer Res; 2017 Jan; 23(1):13-20. PubMed ID: 27742793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A modified toxicity probability interval method for dose-finding trials.
Ji Y; Liu P; Li Y; Bekele BN
Clin Trials; 2010 Dec; 7(6):653-63. PubMed ID: 20935021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Overall success rate of a safe and efficacious drug: Results using six phase 1 designs, each followed by standard phase 2 and 3 designs.
Ruppert AS; Shoben AB
Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2018 Dec; 12():40-50. PubMed ID: 30225393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A likelihood-based approach for computing the operating characteristics of the 3+3 phase I clinical trial design with extensions to other A+B designs.
Chiuzan C; Garrett-Mayer E; Yeatts SD
Clin Trials; 2015 Feb; 12(1):24-33. PubMed ID: 25349178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An adaptive dose-finding design based on both safety and immunologic responses in cancer clinical trials.
Chiuzan C; Garrett-Mayer E; Nishimura M
Stat Biopharm Res; 2018; 10(3):185-195. PubMed ID: 30524665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Bayesian dose-finding designs for combination of molecularly targeted agents assuming partial stochastic ordering.
Guo B; Li Y
Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):859-75. PubMed ID: 25413162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
