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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33819639)

  • 1. Estimation of the binomial probabilities in a two-stage phase II clinical trial with two co-primary endpoints.
    Sun Y; Zhang X; Tan X; Tu D
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Jun; 105():106390. PubMed ID: 33819639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Estimation of secondary endpoints in two-stage phase II oncology trials.
    Kunz CU; Kieser M
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(30):4352-68. PubMed ID: 22930470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What inference for two-stage phase II trials?
    Porcher R; Desseaux K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2012 Aug; 12():117. PubMed ID: 22867439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. On the estimation of the binomial probability in multistage clinical trials.
    Jung SH; Kim KM
    Stat Med; 2004 Mar; 23(6):881-96. PubMed ID: 15027078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Interval and point estimation in adaptive Phase II trials with binary endpoint.
    Nhacolo A; Brannath W
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2019 Sep; 28(9):2635-2648. PubMed ID: 29921157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Identifying combined design and analysis procedures in two-stage trials with a binary end point.
    Bowden J; Wason J
    Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(29):3874-84. PubMed ID: 22786815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of estimation methods adjusting for selection bias in adaptive enrichment designs with time-to-event endpoints.
    Di Stefano F; Pannaux M; Correges A; Galtier S; Robert V; Saint-Hilary G
    Stat Med; 2022 May; 41(10):1767-1779. PubMed ID: 35098579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mixed response and time-to-event endpoints for multistage single-arm phase II design.
    Lai X; Zee BC
    Trials; 2015 Jun; 16():250. PubMed ID: 26037094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Design of Phase II cancer trials evaluating survival probabilities.
    Case LD; Morgan TM
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2003 Apr; 3():6. PubMed ID: 12697051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A two-stage design with two co-primary endpoints.
    Song JX
    Contemp Clin Trials Commun; 2015 Oct; 1():2-4. PubMed ID: 29736433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Unbiased estimation in seamless phase II/III trials with unequal treatment effect variances and hypothesis-driven selection rules.
    Robertson DS; Prevost AT; Bowden J
    Stat Med; 2016 Sep; 35(22):3907-22. PubMed ID: 27103068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Optimal and minimax three-stage designs for phase II oncology clinical trials.
    Chen K; Shan M
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2008 Jan; 29(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 17544337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee.
    Seymour L; Ivy SP; Sargent D; Spriggs D; Baker L; Rubinstein L; Ratain MJ; Le Blanc M; Stewart D; Crowley J; Groshen S; Humphrey JS; West P; Berry D
    Clin Cancer Res; 2010 Mar; 16(6):1764-9. PubMed ID: 20215557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The bias of the sample proportion following a group sequential phase II clinical trial.
    Chang MN; Wieand HS; Chang VT
    Stat Med; 1989 May; 8(5):563-70. PubMed ID: 2727475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Point estimation in adaptive enrichment designs.
    Kunzmann K; Benner L; Kieser M
    Stat Med; 2017 Nov; 36(25):3935-3947. PubMed ID: 28783881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Estimation and expected sample size in Simon's two-stage designs that stop as early as possible.
    Daletzakis A; van den Bor R; Jonker MA; Roes KCB; van Tinteren H
    Pharm Stat; 2022 Sep; 21(5):879-894. PubMed ID: 35191174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A stratified adaptive two-stage design with co-primary endpoints for phase II clinical oncology trials.
    Cabarrou B; Leconte E; Sfumato P; Boher JM; Filleron T
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Oct; 22(1):278. PubMed ID: 36289451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. P-value calculation for multistage phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Jung SH; Owzar K; George SL; Lee T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2006; 16(6):765-75; discussion 777-83. PubMed ID: 17146978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.