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 *

93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8087499)

  • 1. A comparison of methods for phase II cancer clinical trials: advantages of the triangular test, a group sequential method.
    Bellissant E; Benichou J; Chastang C
    Lung Cancer; 1994 Mar; 10 Suppl 1():S105-15. PubMed ID: 8087499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The group sequential triangular test for phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Bellissant E; Bénichou J; Chastang C
    Am J Clin Oncol; 1996 Aug; 19(4):422-30. PubMed ID: 8677918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A flexible multi-stage design for phase II oncology trials.
    Tan MT; Xiong X
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(4):369-73. PubMed ID: 22328328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Design and analysis of phase II trials in oncology with a group sequential method, the triangular test].
    Bellissant E; Bénichou J; Chastang C
    Therapie; 1991; 46(1):21-7. PubMed ID: 2020920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Phase II multi-step planning methods in oncology: comparison, recommendations and potential applications.
    Medioni J; de Rycke Y; Tournoux Facon C; Mallet A; Asselain B
    Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 May; 28(3):249-57. PubMed ID: 17113357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A microcomputer program for the design and analysis of phase II cancer clinical trials with two group sequential methods, the sequential probability ratio test, and the triangular test.
    Bellissant E; Benichou J; Chastang C
    Comput Biomed Res; 1994 Feb; 27(1):13-26. PubMed ID: 8004938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Setting the bar in phase II trials: the use of historical data for determining "go/no go" decision for definitive phase III testing.
    Vickers AJ; Ballen V; Scher HI
    Clin Cancer Res; 2007 Feb; 13(3):972-6. PubMed ID: 17277252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Group-sequential methods for adaptive seamless phase II/III clinical trials.
    Stallard N
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Jul; 21(4):787-801. PubMed ID: 21516569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A design alternative for two-stage, phase II, multicenter cancer clinical trials.
    Herndon JE
    Control Clin Trials; 1998 Oct; 19(5):440-50. PubMed ID: 9741865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of phase II clinical trials in haematology and oncology: comparison of the triangular test to the usual methods.
    Benichou J; Bellissant E; Chastang C
    Stat Med; 1991 Jun; 10(6):989; discussion 989-90. PubMed ID: 1876789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Application of the triangular test to phase II cancer clinical trials.
    Bellissant E; Benichou J; Chastang C
    Stat Med; 1990 Aug; 9(8):907-17. PubMed ID: 2218193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multistage designs for phase II clinical trials: statistical issues in cancer research.
    Kramar A; Potvin D; Hill C
    Br J Cancer; 1996 Oct; 74(8):1317-20. PubMed ID: 8883425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of futility monitoring guidelines using completed phase III oncology trials.
    Zhang Q; Freidlin B; Korn EL; Halabi S; Mandrekar S; Dignam JJ
    Clin Trials; 2017 Feb; 14(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 27590208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An exact method for analysis following a two-stage phase II cancer clinical trial.
    Jovic G; Whitehead J
    Stat Med; 2010 Dec; 29(30):3118-25. PubMed ID: 21170906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sequential methods and group sequential designs for comparative clinical trials.
    Sébille V; Bellissant E
    Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2003 Oct; 17(5):505-16. PubMed ID: 14703713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Decision making from Phase II to Phase III and the probability of success: reassured by "assurance"?
    Carroll KJ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(5):1188-200. PubMed ID: 23957523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An analytical approach to assess the predictive value of biomarkers in Phase II decision making.
    Nikolakopoulos S; van der Wal WM; Roes KC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(5):1106-23. PubMed ID: 23957519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. [Research design for patient selection in clinical trials phase II].
    Kramar A; Potvin D; Hill C
    Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 1996 Aug; 44(4):364-71. PubMed ID: 8927779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.