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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31424631)

  • 1. Oncology phase II proof-of-concept studies with multiple targets: Randomized controlled trial or single arm?
    Jemielita T; Tse A; Chen C
    Pharm Stat; 2020 Mar; 19(2):117-125. PubMed ID: 31424631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Maximizing return on socioeconomic investment in phase II proof-of-concept trials.
    Chen C; Beckman RA
    Clin Cancer Res; 2014 Apr; 20(7):1730-4. PubMed ID: 24526732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design.
    Taylor JM; Braun TM; Li Z
    Clin Trials; 2006; 3(4):335-48. PubMed ID: 17060208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of error rates in single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Tang H; Foster NR; Grothey A; Ansell SM; Goldberg RM; Sargent DJ
    J Clin Oncol; 2010 Apr; 28(11):1936-41. PubMed ID: 20212253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Other paradigms: better treatments are identified by better trials: the value of randomized phase II studies.
    Sharma MR; Maitland ML; Ratain MJ
    Cancer J; 2009; 15(5):426-30. PubMed ID: 19826363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Analyzing overall survival in randomized controlled trials with crossover and implications for economic evaluation.
    Jönsson L; Sandin R; Ekman M; Ramsberg J; Charbonneau C; Huang X; Jönsson B; Weinstein MC; Drummond M
    Value Health; 2014 Sep; 17(6):707-13. PubMed ID: 25236994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Improving the design of phase II trials of cytostatic anticancer agents.
    Stone A; Wheeler C; Barge A
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Feb; 28(2):138-45. PubMed ID: 16843736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bayesian Phase II optimization for time-to-event data based on historical information.
    Bertsche A; Fleischer F; Beyersmann J; Nehmiz G
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Apr; 28(4):1272-1289. PubMed ID: 29284369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Current issues in oncology drug development, with a focus on Phase II trials.
    Sargent DJ; Taylor JM
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009; 19(3):556-62. PubMed ID: 19384696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quantitative evaluation of single-arm versus randomized phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Pond GR; Abbasi S
    Clin Trials; 2011 Jun; 8(3):260-9. PubMed ID: 21511687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Using value of information methods to determine the optimal sample size for effectiveness trials of alcohol interventions for HIV-infected patients in East Africa.
    Li L; Uyei J; Nucifora KA; Kessler J; Stevens ER; Bryant K; Braithwaite RS
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 Jul; 18(1):590. PubMed ID: 30064428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Innovation in oncology clinical trial design.
    Verweij J; Hendriks HR; Zwierzina H;
    Cancer Treat Rev; 2019 Mar; 74():15-20. PubMed ID: 30665053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Factors associated with failure of oncology drugs in late-stage clinical development: A systematic review.
    Jardim DL; Groves ES; Breitfeld PP; Kurzrock R
    Cancer Treat Rev; 2017 Jan; 52():12-21. PubMed ID: 27883925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Practical feasibility of outcomes research in oncology: lessons learned in assessing drug use and cost-effectiveness in The Netherlands.
    Franken MG; van Gils CW; Gaultney JG; Delwel GO; Goettsch W; Huijgens PC; Steenhoek A; Punt CJ; Koopman M; Redekop WK; Uyl-de Groot CA
    Eur J Cancer; 2013 Jan; 49(1):8-16. PubMed ID: 22809557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Oncogenic targets, magnitude of benefit, and market pricing of antineoplastic drugs.
    Amir E; Seruga B; Martinez-Lopez J; Kwong R; Pandiella A; Tannock IF; Ocaña A
    J Clin Oncol; 2011 Jun; 29(18):2543-9. PubMed ID: 21606435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Examining Trends in Cost and Clinical Benefit of Novel Anticancer Drugs Over Time.
    Saluja R; Arciero VS; Cheng S; McDonald E; Wong WWL; Cheung MC; Chan KKW
    J Oncol Pract; 2018 May; 14(5):e280-e294. PubMed ID: 29601250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Statistical considerations of designs for single-arm proof-of-concept oncology trial with time-to-event endpoint.
    Zhou H; Sun L; Wang M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2023 Jun; 129():107200. PubMed ID: 37068588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Treatment switching in oncology trials and the acceptability of adjustment methods.
    Latimer NR
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2015; 15(4):561-4. PubMed ID: 25893990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Statistical issues and recommendations for noninferiority trials in oncology: a systematic review.
    Tanaka S; Kinjo Y; Kataoka Y; Yoshimura K; Teramukai S
    Clin Cancer Res; 2012 Apr; 18(7):1837-47. PubMed ID: 22317762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Treatment costs associated with interventional cancer clinical trials conducted at a single UK institution over 2 years (2009-2010).
    Liniker E; Harrison M; Weaver JM; Agrawal N; Chhabra A; Kingshott V; Bailey S; Eisen TG; Corrie PG
    Br J Cancer; 2013 Oct; 109(8):2051-7. PubMed ID: 24064969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.