157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32310707)
1. A dose-finding approach for genomic patterns in phase I trials.
Kaneko S; Hirakawa A; Kakurai Y; Hamada C
J Biopharm Stat; 2020 Sep; 30(5):834-853. PubMed ID: 32310707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Seamless Phase I/II Adaptive Design for Oncology Trials of Molecularly Targeted Agents.
Wages NA; Tait C
J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(5):903-20. PubMed ID: 24904956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Phase I/II dose-finding design for molecularly targeted agent: Plateau determination using adaptive randomization.
Riviere MK; Yuan Y; Jourdan JH; Dubois F; Zohar S
Stat Methods Med Res; 2018 Feb; 27(2):466-479. PubMed ID: 26988926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Bayesian dose-finding designs for combination of molecularly targeted agents assuming partial stochastic ordering.
Guo B; Li Y
Stat Med; 2015 Feb; 34(5):859-75. PubMed ID: 25413162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Two-stage approach based on zone and dose findings for two-agent combination Phase I/II trials.
Shimamura F; Hamada C; Matsui S; Hirakawa A
J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(6):1025-1037. PubMed ID: 29420127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Towards using a full spectrum of early clinical trial data: a retrospective analysis to compare potential longitudinal categorical models for molecular targeted therapies in oncology.
Colin P; Micallef S; Delattre M; Mancini P; Parent E
Stat Med; 2015 Sep; 34(22):2999-3016. PubMed ID: 26059319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. An adaptive dose-finding method using a change-point model for molecularly targeted agents in phase I trials.
Sato H; Hirakawa A; Hamada C
Stat Med; 2016 Oct; 35(23):4093-109. PubMed ID: 27221807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Improved adaptive randomization strategies for a seamless Phase I/II dose-finding design.
Yan D; Wages NA; Dressler EV
J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):333-347. PubMed ID: 30451068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Statistical controversies in clinical research: building the bridge to phase II-efficacy estimation in dose-expansion cohorts.
Boonstra PS; Braun TM; Taylor JMG; Kidwell KM; Bellile EL; Daignault S; Zhao L; Griffith KA; Lawrence TS; Kalemkerian GP; Schipper MJ
Ann Oncol; 2017 Jul; 28(7):1427-1435. PubMed ID: 28200082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. An adaptive dose-finding approach for correlated bivariate binary and continuous outcomes in phase I oncology trials.
Hirakawa A
Stat Med; 2012 Mar; 31(6):516-32. PubMed ID: 22108785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Dose-Finding Method Based on Multiple Dosing in Two-Agent Combination Phase I Trials.
Kakurai Y; Hirakawa A; Hamada C
J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(5):1065-76. PubMed ID: 25369852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. STEIN: A simple toxicity and efficacy interval design for seamless phase I/II clinical trials.
Lin R; Yin G
Stat Med; 2017 Nov; 36(26):4106-4120. PubMed ID: 28786138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bayesian dose-finding phase I trial design incorporating historical data from a preceding trial.
Takeda K; Morita S
Pharm Stat; 2018 Jul; 17(4):372-382. PubMed ID: 29372582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Adaptive dose-finding based on safety and feasibility in early-phase clinical trials of adoptive cell immunotherapy.
Wages NA; Fadul CE
Clin Trials; 2020 Apr; 17(2):157-165. PubMed ID: 31856602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Simple benchmark for complex dose finding studies.
Cheung YK
Biometrics; 2014 Jun; 70(2):389-97. PubMed ID: 24571185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy.
Zhang W; Sargent DJ; Mandrekar S
Stat Med; 2006 Jul; 25(14):2365-83. PubMed ID: 16220478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Two-stage dose finding for cytostatic agents in phase I oncology trials.
Yin G; Zheng S; Xu J
Stat Med; 2013 Feb; 32(4):644-60. PubMed ID: 22855354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
