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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30327310)

  • 1. The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.
    Conaway MR; Petroni GR
    Clin Cancer Res; 2019 Jan; 25(2):819-827. PubMed ID: 30327310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Time-to-Event Bayesian Optimal Interval Design to Accelerate Phase I Trials.
    Yuan Y; Lin R; Li D; Nie L; Warren KE
    Clin Cancer Res; 2018 Oct; 24(20):4921-4930. PubMed ID: 29769209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. CRM2DIM: A SAS macro for implementing the dual-agent Bayesian continual reassessment method.
    Bayar MA; Ivanova A; Le Teuff G
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2019 Jul; 176():211-223. PubMed ID: 31200907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. An evaluation of phase I cancer clinical trial designs.
    Ahn C
    Stat Med; 1998 Jul; 17(14):1537-49. PubMed ID: 9699228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A phase I dose-finding design with incorporation of historical information and adaptive shrinking boundaries.
    Li C; Pan H
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0237254. PubMed ID: 32853204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. TITE-BOIN-ET: Time-to-event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose-finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes.
    Takeda K; Morita S; Taguri M
    Pharm Stat; 2020 May; 19(3):335-349. PubMed ID: 31829517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bayesian Optimal Interval Design: A Simple and Well-Performing Design for Phase I Oncology Trials.
    Yuan Y; Hess KR; Hilsenbeck SG; Gilbert MR
    Clin Cancer Res; 2016 Sep; 22(17):4291-301. PubMed ID: 27407096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.
    Wheeler GM; Mander AP; Bedding A; Brock K; Cornelius V; Grieve AP; Jaki T; Love SB; Odondi L; Weir CJ; Yap C; Bond SJ
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jan; 19(1):18. PubMed ID: 30658575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Improving early phase oncology clinical trial design: The case for finding the optimal biological dose.
    Phillips A; Mondal S
    Pharm Stat; 2023; 22(4):739-747. PubMed ID: 36669771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A utility-based Bayesian optimal interval (U-BOIN) phase I/II design to identify the optimal biological dose for targeted and immune therapies.
    Zhou Y; Lee JJ; Yuan Y
    Stat Med; 2019 Dec; 38(28):5299-5316. PubMed ID: 31621952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Performance of phase-I dose finding designs with and without a run-in intra-patient dose escalation stage.
    Labrenz J; Edelmann D; Heitmann JS; Salih HR; Kopp-Schneider A; Schlenk RF
    Pharm Stat; 2023 Mar; 22(2):236-247. PubMed ID: 36285348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Surv-CRM-12: A Bayesian phase I/II survival CRM for right-censored toxicity endpoints with competing disease progression.
    Andrillon A; Chevret S; Lee SM; Biard L
    Stat Med; 2022 Dec; 41(29):5753-5766. PubMed ID: 36259523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. BOIN-ET: Bayesian optimal interval design for dose finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes.
    Takeda K; Taguri M; Morita S
    Pharm Stat; 2018 Jul; 17(4):383-395. PubMed ID: 29700965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.