Mark Ratain to Research Design
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Mark Ratain has written about Research Design.
Connection Strength
3.613
-
Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding. Clin Trials. 2024 06; 21(3):340-349.
Score: 0.605
-
Design of phase I combination trials: recommendations of the Clinical Trial Design Task Force of the NCI Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Aug 15; 20(16):4210-7.
Score: 0.316
-
Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 15; 18(8):2309-15.
Score: 0.265
-
Randomized phase II trials: a long-term investment with promising returns. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 20; 103(14):1093-100.
Score: 0.254
-
Clarification regarding "phase II trials published in 2002: a cross-specialty comparison showing significant design differences between oncology trials and other medical specialties" and the accompanying commentary, "phase II cancer trials: out of control?". Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Nov 01; 13(21):6540.
Score: 0.197
-
Phase II trials published in 2002: a cross-specialty comparison showing significant design differences between oncology trials and other medical specialties. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 15; 13(8):2400-5.
Score: 0.190
-
Testing the wrong hypothesis in phase II oncology trials: there is a better alternative. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Feb 01; 13(3):781-2.
Score: 0.187
-
Potential alternative dosage strategies for patent-protected oral cancer drugs. Eur J Cancer. 2025 Nov 17; 230:116067.
Score: 0.171
-
Critical importance of correctly defining and reporting secondary endpoints when assessing the ethics of research biopsies. Clin Trials. 2024 10; 21(5):650-656.
Score: 0.155
-
Randomized discontinuation design: application to cytostatic antineoplastic agents. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Nov 15; 20(22):4478-84.
Score: 0.140
-
Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jun 15; 19(12):3154-5.
Score: 0.127
-
Casting doubt on the scientific utility of post-treatment biopsies in phase 1 trials. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2016 Feb; 14(2):78-9.
Score: 0.087
-
Taking a Measured Approach to Toxicity Data in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Feb 01; 22(3):527-9.
Score: 0.086
-
Targeted therapies: redefining the primary objective of phase I oncology trials. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep; 11(9):503-4.
Score: 0.079
-
Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Oct 20; 85(20):1637-43.
Score: 0.075
-
Cancer pharmacogenomics: strategies and challenges. Nat Rev Genet. 2013 Jan; 14(1):23-34.
Score: 0.070
-
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. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Mar 15; 16(6):1764-9.
Score: 0.058
-
Guidelines for the development and incorporation of biomarker studies in early clinical trials of novel agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Mar 15; 16(6):1745-55.
Score: 0.058
-
Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan; 45(2):275-80.
Score: 0.053
-
The investigational drug steering committee. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2007 Oct; 5(10):779-80.
Score: 0.049
-
Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 03; 99(19):1455-61.
Score: 0.049
-
The cancer and leukemia group B pharmacology and experimental therapeutics committee: a historical perspective. Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jun 01; 12(11 Pt 2):3612s-6s.
Score: 0.045
-
Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006 05; 6(5):409-14.
Score: 0.044
-
Successful implementation of the randomized discontinuation trial design: an application to the study of the putative antiangiogenic agent carboxyaminoimidazole in renal cell carcinoma--CALGB 69901. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun 01; 23(16):3726-32.
Score: 0.042
-
Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: if you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Nov 15; 22(22):4442-5.
Score: 0.040
-
The tyranny of non-inferiority trials. Lancet Oncol. 2024 10; 25(10):e520-e525.
Score: 0.040
-
Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022. Ann Oncol. 2023 01; 34(1):48-60.
Score: 0.035
-
Development of target-based antineoplastic agents. Invest New Drugs. 2000 Feb; 18(1):7-16.
Score: 0.029
-
Opportunities and challenges in the development of experimental drug combinations for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Aug 17; 103(16):1222-6.
Score: 0.016
-
Dose-escalation models for combination phase I trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2010 Nov; 46(16):2870-8.
Score: 0.015
-
Ethical, scientific, and regulatory perspectives regarding the use of placebos in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10; 26(8):1371-8.
Score: 0.013
-
Attitudes toward research participation and investigator conflicts of interest among advanced cancer patients participating in early phase clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 10; 25(23):3488-94.
Score: 0.012
-
Learning from our patients: one participant's impact on clinical trial research and informed consent. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jun 01; 126(11):892-7.
Score: 0.006
-
Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol. 1995 May; 13(5):1062-72.
Score: 0.005