260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29969380)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Applications of Bayesian statistical methodology to clinical trial design: A case study of a phase 2 trial with an interim futility assessment in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Smith CL; Jin Y; Raddad E; McNearney TA; Ni X; Monteith D; Brown R; Deeg MA; Schnitzer T
Pharm Stat; 2019 Jan; 18(1):39-53. PubMed ID: 30321909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. An analytical approach to assess the predictive value of biomarkers in Phase II decision making.
Nikolakopoulos S; van der Wal WM; Roes KC
J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(5):1106-23. PubMed ID: 23957519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Bayesian optimal phase II clinical trial design with time-to-event endpoint.
Zhou H; Chen C; Sun L; Yuan Y
Pharm Stat; 2020 Nov; 19(6):776-786. PubMed ID: 32524679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A modified varying-stage adaptive phase II/III clinical trial design.
Dong G; Vandemeulebroecke M
Pharm Stat; 2016 Jul; 15(4):368-78. PubMed ID: 27264007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Time-to-event analysis with treatment arm selection at interim.
Di Scala L; Glimm E
Stat Med; 2011 Nov; 30(26):3067-81. PubMed ID: 21898523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Sequentially updating the likelihood of success of a Phase 3 pivotal time-to-event trial based on interim analyses or external information.
Rufibach K; Jordan P; Abt M
J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(2):191-201. PubMed ID: 25372950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Designing exploratory cancer trials using change in tumour size as primary endpoint.
Jaki T; André V; Su TL; Whitehead J
Stat Med; 2013 Jul; 32(15):2544-54. PubMed ID: 23280944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Response adaptive randomization procedures in seamless phase II/III clinical trials.
Zhu H; Piao J; Lee JJ; Hu F; Zhang L
J Biopharm Stat; 2020; 30(1):3-17. PubMed ID: 31454295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A new statistical decision rule for single-arm phase II oncology trials.
Chen Y; Chen Z; Mori M
Stat Methods Med Res; 2016 Feb; 25(1):118-32. PubMed ID: 22461073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Randomized two-stage Phase II clinical trial designs based on Barnard's exact test.
Shan G; Ma C; Hutson AD; Wilding GE
J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(5):1081-90. PubMed ID: 23957517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Confirmatory clinical trials with an adaptive design.
Koch A
Biom J; 2006 Aug; 48(4):574-85. PubMed ID: 16972708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: applications and practical considerations.
Schmidli H; Bretz F; Racine A; Maurer W
Biom J; 2006 Aug; 48(4):635-43. PubMed ID: 16972715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bayesian sample size determination for a Phase III clinical trial with diluted treatment effect.
Zhang YY; Ting N
J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(6):1119-1142. PubMed ID: 29513608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Leveraging historical data into oncology development programs: Two case studies of phase 2 Bayesian augmented control trial designs.
Smith CL; Thomas Z; Enas N; Thorn K; Lahn M; Benhadji K; Cleverly A
Pharm Stat; 2020 May; 19(3):276-290. PubMed ID: 31903699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
