234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29700949)
1. Optimal planning of phase II/III programs for clinical trials with multiple endpoints.
Kieser M; Kirchner M; Dölger E; Götte H
Pharm Stat; 2018 Sep; 17(5):437-457. PubMed ID: 29700949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Optimal sample size allocation and go/no-go decision rules for phase II/III programs where several phase III trials are performed.
Preussler S; Kieser M; Kirchner M
Biom J; 2019 Mar; 61(2):357-378. PubMed ID: 30182372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Optimal decision-making in oncology development programs based on probability of success for phase III utilizing phase II/III data on response and overall survival.
Götte H; Xiong J; Kirchner M; Demirtas H; Kieser M
Pharm Stat; 2020 Nov; 19(6):861-881. PubMed ID: 32662598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Sample size planning for phase II trials based on success probabilities for phase III.
Götte H; Schüler A; Kirchner M; Kieser M
Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(6):515-24. PubMed ID: 26412484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A 2-in-1 adaptive phase 2/3 design for expedited oncology drug development.
Chen C; Anderson K; Mehrotra DV; Rubin EH; Tse A
Contemp Clin Trials; 2018 Jan; 64():238-242. PubMed ID: 28966137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Utility-based optimization of phase II/III programs.
Kirchner M; Kieser M; Götte H; Schüler A
Stat Med; 2016 Jan; 35(2):305-16. PubMed ID: 26256550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Decision making from Phase II to Phase III and the probability of success: reassured by "assurance"?
Carroll KJ
J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(5):1188-200. PubMed ID: 23957523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Quantitative decision-making in randomized Phase II studies with a time-to-event endpoint.
Huang B; Talukder E; Han L; Kuan PF
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(1):189-202. PubMed ID: 29969380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The phase II/III transition. Toward the proof of efficacy in cancer clinical trials.
Fazzari M; Heller G; Scher HI
Control Clin Trials; 2000 Aug; 21(4):360-8. PubMed ID: 10913810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Group-sequential methods for adaptive seamless phase II/III clinical trials.
Stallard N
J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):787-801. PubMed ID: 21516569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Integrated phase II/III clinical trials in oncology: a case study.
Wang M; Dignam JJ; Zhang QE; DeGroot JF; Mehta MP; Hunsberger S
Clin Trials; 2012 Dec; 9(6):741-7. PubMed ID: 23180870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Conservative sample size estimation in nonparametrics.
De Martini D
J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jan; 21(1):24-41. PubMed ID: 21191852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A varying-stage adaptive phase II/III clinical trial design.
Dong G
Stat Med; 2014 Apr; 33(8):1272-87. PubMed ID: 24273128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimal seamless phase 2/3 oncology trial designs based on Probability of Success (PoS).
Teng Z; Liang L; Liu G; Liu Y
Stat Med; 2018 Dec; 37(28):4097-4113. PubMed ID: 30084110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Optimizing the data combination rule for seamless phase II/III clinical trials.
Hampson LV; Jennison C
Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(1):39-58. PubMed ID: 25315892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A flexible multi-stage design for phase II oncology trials.
Tan MT; Xiong X
Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(4):369-73. PubMed ID: 22328328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Practical guidelines for adaptive seamless phase II/III clinical trials that use Bayesian methods.
Kimani PK; Glimm E; Maurer W; Hutton JL; Stallard N
Stat Med; 2012 Aug; 31(19):2068-85. PubMed ID: 22437262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results.
Erdmann S; Kirchner M; Götte H; Kieser M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Oct; 20(1):253. PubMed ID: 33036572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mixed response and time-to-event endpoints for multistage single-arm phase II design.
Lai X; Zee BC
Trials; 2015 Jun; 16():250. PubMed ID: 26037094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
