178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30744484)
1. R-TPI: rolling toxicity probability interval design to shorten the duration and maintain safety of phase I trials.
Guo W; Ji Y; Li D
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(3):411-424. PubMed ID: 30744484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An adaptive multi-stage phase I dose-finding design incorporating continuous efficacy and toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.
Du Y; Yin J; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar SJ
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):271-286. PubMed ID: 30403559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Modified toxicity probability interval design: a safer and more reliable method than the 3 + 3 design for practical phase I trials.
Ji Y; Wang SJ
J Clin Oncol; 2013 May; 31(14):1785-91. PubMed ID: 23569307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
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. 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]
7. 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]
8. Three-dose-cohort designs in cancer phase I trials.
Huang B; Chappell R
Stat Med; 2008 May; 27(12):2070-93. PubMed ID: 17764082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Small-sample behavior of novel phase I cancer trial designs.
Oron AP; Hoff PD
Clin Trials; 2013 Feb; 10(1):63-80. PubMed ID: 23345304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The i3+3 design for phase I clinical trials.
Liu M; Wang SJ; Ji Y
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Mar; 30(2):294-304. PubMed ID: 31304864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Escalation with overdose control using all toxicities and time to event toxicity data in cancer Phase I clinical trials.
Chen Z; Cui Y; Owonikoko TK; Wang Z; Li Z; Luo R; Kutner M; Khuri FR; Kowalski J
Contemp Clin Trials; 2014 Mar; 37(2):322-32. PubMed ID: 24530487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Model of a Queuing Approach for Patient Accrual in Phase 1 Oncology Studies.
Frankel PH; Chung V; Tuscano J; Siddiqi T; Sampath S; Longmate J; Groshen S; Newman EM
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 May; 3(5):e204787. PubMed ID: 32401317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dose-finding designs in pediatric phase I clinical trials: comparison by simulations in a realistic timeline framework.
Doussau A; Asselain B; Le Deley MC; Geoerger B; Doz F; Vassal G; Paoletti X
Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Jul; 33(4):657-65. PubMed ID: 22521954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Keyboard: A Novel Bayesian Toxicity Probability Interval Design for Phase I Clinical Trials.
Yan F; Mandrekar SJ; Yuan Y
Clin Cancer Res; 2017 Aug; 23(15):3994-4003. PubMed ID: 28546227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. A phase I/II seamless dose escalation/expansion with adaptive randomization scheme (SEARS).
Pan H; Xie F; Liu P; Xia J; Ji Y
Clin Trials; 2014 Feb; 11(1):49-59. PubMed ID: 24137041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimal phase I dose-escalation trial designs in oncology--a simulation study.
Gerke O; Siedentop H
Stat Med; 2008 Nov; 27(26):5329-44. PubMed ID: 17849502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A Bayesian adaptive design for estimating the maximum tolerated dose curve using drug combinations in cancer phase I clinical trials.
Tighiouart M; Li Q; Rogatko A
Stat Med; 2017 Jan; 36(2):280-290. PubMed ID: 27060889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
