205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34000410)
1. Rolling continual reassessment method with overdose control: An efficient and safe dose escalation design.
Zhu J; Sabanés Bové D; Liao Z; Beyer U; Yung G; Sarkar S
Contemp Clin Trials; 2021 Aug; 107():106436. PubMed ID: 34000410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Escalation with overdose control using all toxicities and time to event toxicity data in cancer Phase I clinical trials.
Chen Z; Cui Y; Owonikoko TK; Wang Z; Li Z; Luo R; Kutner M; Khuri FR; Kowalski J
Contemp Clin Trials; 2014 Mar; 37(2):322-32. PubMed ID: 24530487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A new pragmatic design for dose escalation in phase 1 clinical trials using an adaptive continual reassessment method.
North B; Kocher HM; Sasieni P
BMC Cancer; 2019 Jun; 19(1):632. PubMed ID: 31242873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Improvements to the Escalation with Overdose Control design and a comparison with the restricted Continual Reassessment Method.
Ji L; Lewinger JP; Krailo M; Groshen S; Conti DV; Asgharzadeh S; Sposto R
Pharm Stat; 2019 Nov; 18(6):659-670. PubMed ID: 31237419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Practical modifications to the time-to-event continual reassessment method for phase I cancer trials with fast patient accrual and late-onset toxicities.
Polley MY
Stat Med; 2011 Jul; 30(17):2130-43. PubMed ID: 21590790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. GUIP1: a R package for dose escalation strategies in phase I cancer clinical trials.
Dinart D; Fraisse J; Tosi D; Mauguen A; Touraine C; Gourgou S; Le Deley MC; Bellera C; Mollevi C
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2020 Jun; 20(1):134. PubMed ID: 32580715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Adaptive dose-finding studies: a review of model-guided phase I clinical trials.
Iasonos A; O'Quigley J
J Clin Oncol; 2014 Aug; 32(23):2505-11. PubMed ID: 24982451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Designing dose-escalation trials with late-onset toxicities using the time-to-event continual reassessment method.
Normolle D; Lawrence T
J Clin Oncol; 2006 Sep; 24(27):4426-33. PubMed ID: 16983110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dose escalation with overdose control using a quasi-continuous toxicity score in cancer Phase I clinical trials.
Chen Z; Tighiouart M; Kowalski J
Contemp Clin Trials; 2012 Sep; 33(5):949-58. PubMed ID: 22561391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Phase I study of continuous MKC-1 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid malignancies using the modified Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TITE-CRM) dose escalation design.
Tevaarwerk A; Wilding G; Eickhoff J; Chappell R; Sidor C; Arnott J; Bailey H; Schelman W; Liu G
Invest New Drugs; 2012 Jun; 30(3):1039-45. PubMed ID: 21225315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Time-to-Event Bayesian Optimal Interval Design to Accelerate Phase I Trials.
Yuan Y; Lin R; Li D; Nie L; Warren KE
Clin Cancer Res; 2018 Oct; 24(20):4921-4930. PubMed ID: 29769209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A novel toxicity scoring system treating toxicity response as a quasi-continuous variable in Phase I clinical trials.
Chen Z; Krailo MD; Azen SP; Tighiouart M
Contemp Clin Trials; 2010 Sep; 31(5):473-82. PubMed ID: 20609419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The superiority of the time-to-event continual reassessment method to the rolling six design in pediatric oncology Phase I trials.
Zhao L; Lee J; Mody R; Braun TM
Clin Trials; 2011 Aug; 8(4):361-9. PubMed ID: 21610004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The continual reassessment method for dose-finding studies: a tutorial.
Garrett-Mayer E
Clin Trials; 2006; 3(1):57-71. PubMed ID: 16539090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy, Safety, and Reliability of Novel Phase I Trial Designs.
Zhou H; Yuan Y; Nie L
Clin Cancer Res; 2018 Sep; 24(18):4357-4364. PubMed ID: 29661774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
