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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32338410)

  • 21. A new basket trial design based on clustering of homogeneous subpopulations.
    Krajewska M; Rauch G
    J Biopharm Stat; 2021 Jul; 31(4):425-447. PubMed ID: 34236938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Performance of adaptive designs for single-armed phase II oncology trials.
    Kieser M; Englert S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(3):602-15. PubMed ID: 24905363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Statistical analysis for two-stage seamless design with different study endpoints.
    Chow SC; Lu Q; Tse SK
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(6):1163-76. PubMed ID: 18027223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. When is a two-stage single-arm trial efficient? An evaluation of the impact of outcome delay.
    Mukherjee A; Wason JMS; Grayling MJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2022 May; 166():270-278. PubMed ID: 35344852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. A 2-in-1 adaptive phase 2/3 design for expedited oncology drug development.
    Chen C; Anderson K; Mehrotra DV; Rubin EH; Tse A
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2018 Jan; 64():238-242. PubMed ID: 28966137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of a multi-arm multi-stage Bayesian design for phase II drug selection trials - an example in hemato-oncology.
    Jacob L; Uvarova M; Boulet S; Begaj I; Chevret S
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 Jun; 16():67. PubMed ID: 27250349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Practical guidelines for adaptive seamless phase II/III clinical trials that use Bayesian methods.
    Kimani PK; Glimm E; Maurer W; Hutton JL; Stallard N
    Stat Med; 2012 Aug; 31(19):2068-85. PubMed ID: 22437262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Extensions of the 2-in-1 adaptive design.
    Chen C; Li W; Deng Q
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2020 Aug; 95():106053. PubMed ID: 32504820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. RESTART trial design: two-stage seamless transition design with operational considerations.
    Yi M; Zhuo B; Cooner F
    J Biopharm Stat; 2023 Nov; 33(6):820-829. PubMed ID: 36653753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparing Go/No-Go Decision-Making Properties Between Single Arm Phase II Trial Designs in Oncology.
    Broglio K; Marshall J; Yu B; Frewer P
    Ther Innov Regul Sci; 2022 Mar; 56(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 34988927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Optimizing the data combination rule for seamless phase II/III clinical trials.
    Hampson LV; Jennison C
    Stat Med; 2015 Jan; 34(1):39-58. PubMed ID: 25315892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A two-stage drop-the-losers design for time-to-event outcome using a historical control arm.
    Abbas R; Wason J; Michiels S; Le Teuff G
    Pharm Stat; 2022 Jan; 21(1):268-288. PubMed ID: 34496117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Optimal sample size division in two-stage seamless designs.
    Berry LR; Marion J; Berry SM; Viele K
    Pharm Stat; 2024 Apr; ():. PubMed ID: 38676420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A Bayesian three-tier quantitative decision-making framework for single arm studies in early phase oncology.
    Liu Z; Liu J; Xia M
    J Biopharm Stat; 2023 Jan; 33(1):60-76. PubMed ID: 35723946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A seamless phase IIB/III adaptive outcome trial: design rationale and implementation challenges.
    Chen YH; Gesser R; Luxembourg A
    Clin Trials; 2015 Feb; 12(1):84-90. PubMed ID: 25278227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Adaptive group sequential survival comparisons based on log-rank and pointwise test statistics.
    Feld J; Faldum A; Schmidt R
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Dec; 30(12):2562-2581. PubMed ID: 34641702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Phase II clinical trials in oncology: strengths and limitations of two-stage designs.
    Schlesselman JJ; Reis IM
    Cancer Invest; 2006; 24(4):404-12. PubMed ID: 16777694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A method for utilizing co-primary efficacy outcome measures to screen regimens for activity in two-stage Phase II clinical trials.
    Sill MW; Rubinstein L; Litwin S; Yothers G
    Clin Trials; 2012 Aug; 9(4):385-95. PubMed ID: 22811448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.