146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33588519)
1. Consistency of the CRM when the dose-toxicity curve is not monotone and its application to the POCRM.
Saha PT; Fine JP; Ivanova A
Stat Med; 2021 Apr; 40(8):2073-2082. PubMed ID: 33588519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Dose-finding design for multi-drug combinations.
Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):380-9. PubMed ID: 21652689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of various continual reassessment method models for dose-escalation phase 1 oncology clinical trials: using real clinical data and simulation studies.
James GD; Symeonides S; Marshall J; Young J; Clack G
BMC Cancer; 2021 Jan; 21(1):7. PubMed ID: 33402104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Quasi-partial order continual reassessment method: Applying toxicity scores to cancer dose-finding drug combination trials.
O'Connell NS; Wages NA; Garrett-Mayer E
Contemp Clin Trials; 2023 Feb; 125():107050. PubMed ID: 36529437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Using the time-to-event continual reassessment method in the presence of partial orders.
Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
Stat Med; 2013 Jan; 32(1):131-41. PubMed ID: 22806898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. pocrm: an R-package for phase I trials of combinations of agents.
Wages NA; Varhegyi N
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2013 Oct; 112(1):211-8. PubMed ID: 23871691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Specifications of a continual reassessment method design for phase I trials of combined drugs.
Wages NA; Conaway MR
Pharm Stat; 2013; 12(4):217-24. PubMed ID: 23729323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Implementing the time-to-event continual reassessment method in the presence of partial orders in a phase I head and neck cancer trial.
Patel A; Brock K; Slade D; Gaunt C; Kong A; Mehanna H; Billingham L; Gaunt P
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2024 Jan; 24(1):11. PubMed ID: 38218799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Performance of two-stage continual reassessment method relative to an optimal benchmark.
Wages NA; Conaway MR; O'Quigley J
Clin Trials; 2013; 10(6):862-75. PubMed ID: 24085776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A simulation-free approach to assessing the performance of the continual reassessment method.
Braun TM
Stat Med; 2020 Dec; 39(30):4651-4666. PubMed ID: 32939800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A statistical evaluation of dose expansion cohorts in phase I clinical trials.
Boonstra PS; Shen J; Taylor JM; Braun TM; Griffith KA; Daignault S; Kalemkerian GP; Lawrence TS; Schipper MJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Mar; 107(3):. PubMed ID: 25710960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Estimating the dose-toxicity curve in completed phase I studies.
Iasonos A; Ostrovnaya I
Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2117-29. PubMed ID: 21341302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Systematic comparison of the statistical operating characteristics of various Phase I oncology designs.
Ananthakrishnan R; Green S; Chang M; Doros G; Massaro J; LaValley M
Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2017 Mar; 5():34-48. PubMed ID: 29740620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dose-finding clinical trial design for ordinal toxicity grades using the continuation ratio model: an extension of the continual reassessment method.
Van Meter EM; Garrett-Mayer E; Bandyopadhyay D
Clin Trials; 2012 Jun; 9(3):303-13. PubMed ID: 22547420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A novel model of the continual reassessment method in Phase I trial.
Zhang W; Lei W; Zhu X
Sci Rep; 2023 Mar; 13(1):5047. PubMed ID: 36977709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A curve-free method for phase I clinical trials.
Gasparini M; Eisele J
Biometrics; 2000 Jun; 56(2):609-15. PubMed ID: 10877324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
