209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8962459)
1. Designs for phase II trials allowing for a trade-off between response and toxicity.
Conaway MR; Petroni GR
Biometrics; 1996 Dec; 52(4):1375-86. PubMed ID: 8962459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Bivariate sequential designs for phase II trials.
Conaway MR; Petroni GR
Biometrics; 1995 Jun; 51(2):656-64. PubMed ID: 7662852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Alternative designs of phase II trials considering response and toxicity.
Jin H
Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Jul; 28(4):525-31. PubMed ID: 17428744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Curtailed two-stage designs in Phase II clinical trials.
Chi Y; Chen CM
Stat Med; 2008 Dec; 27(29):6175-89. PubMed ID: 18816510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Incorporating toxicity considerations into the design of two-stage phase II clinical trials.
Bryant J; Day R
Biometrics; 1995 Dec; 51(4):1372-83. PubMed ID: 8589229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Continuous toxicity monitoring in phase II trials in oncology.
Ivanova A; Qaqish BF; Schell MJ
Biometrics; 2005 Jun; 61(2):540-5. PubMed ID: 16011702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Statistical designs for early phases of cancer clinical trials.
Guan S
J Biopharm Stat; 2012; 22(6):1109-26. PubMed ID: 23075011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Toxicity-evaluation designs for phase I/II cancer immunotherapy trials.
Messer K; Natarajan L; Ball ED; Lane TA
Stat Med; 2010 Mar; 29(7-8):712-20. PubMed ID: 20213706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Comparing an experimental agent to a standard agent: relative merits of a one-arm or randomized two-arm Phase II design.
Taylor JM; Braun TM; Li Z
Clin Trials; 2006; 3(4):335-48. PubMed ID: 17060208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Admissible two-stage designs for phase II cancer clinical trials.
Jung SH; Lee T; Kim K; George SL
Stat Med; 2004 Feb; 23(4):561-9. PubMed ID: 14755389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving the flexibility and efficiency of phase II designs for oncology trials.
Englert S; Kieser M
Biometrics; 2012 Sep; 68(3):886-92. PubMed ID: 22150825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Targeting population entering phase III trials: a new stratified adaptive phase II design.
Tournoux-Facon C; De Rycke Y; Tubert-Bitter P
Stat Med; 2011 Apr; 30(8):801-11. PubMed ID: 21432875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Bayesian dose-finding in phase I/II clinical trials using toxicity and efficacy odds ratios.
Yin G; Li Y; Ji Y
Biometrics; 2006 Sep; 62(3):777-84. PubMed ID: 16984320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Methods of joint evaluation of efficacy and toxicity in phase II clinical trials.
Tournoux C; De Rycke Y; Médioni J; Asselain B
Contemp Clin Trials; 2007 Jul; 28(4):514-24. PubMed ID: 17331808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. One- and two-stage designs for stratified phase II clinical trials.
London WB; Chang MN
Stat Med; 2005 Sep; 24(17):2597-611. PubMed ID: 16118809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Phase II stopping rules that employ response rates and early progression.
Goffin JR; Tu D
J Clin Oncol; 2008 Aug; 26(22):3715-20. PubMed ID: 18669457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Dose selection in seamless phase II/III clinical trials based on efficacy and safety.
Kimani PK; Stallard N; Hutton JL
Stat Med; 2009 Mar; 28(6):917-36. PubMed ID: 19152231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
