Mark J. Ratain to Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Mark J. Ratain has written about Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic.
Connection Strength
4.761
-
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: 0.468
-
Targeted therapies: redefining the primary objective of phase I oncology trials. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep; 11(9):503-4.
Score: 0.467
-
Might cigarettes be a "smoking gun" to reduce taxane myelotoxicity? Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Aug 15; 18(16):4219-21.
Score: 0.406
-
Randomized phase II trials: a long-term investment with promising returns. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 20; 103(14):1093-100.
Score: 0.377
-
Analysis of the yield of phase II combination therapy trials in medical oncology. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Nov 01; 16(21):5296-302.
Score: 0.357
-
Other paradigms: better treatments are identified by better trials: the value of randomized phase II studies. Cancer J. 2009 Sep-Oct; 15(5):426-30.
Score: 0.332
-
Optimising the design of phase II oncology trials: the importance of randomisation. Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan; 45(2):275-80.
Score: 0.315
-
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: 0.292
-
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: 0.290
-
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: 0.281
-
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: 0.278
-
Phase II oncology trials: let's be positive. Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Aug 15; 11(16):5661-2.
Score: 0.251
-
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: 0.111
-
Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 15; 18(8):2309-15.
Score: 0.098
-
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: 0.086
-
Evaluating the activity of temsirolimus in neuroendocrine cancer. Br J Cancer. 2007 Jan 15; 96(1):177; author reply 178-9.
Score: 0.069
-
Randomized phase II trials and prostate-specific antigen endpoints in prostate cancer: much ado about nothing? J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 01; 23(31):8124-5; author reply 8125-6.
Score: 0.064
-
Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022. Ann Oncol. 2023 01; 34(1):48-60.
Score: 0.051
-
Troxacitabine in patients with refractory leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Aug 01; 20(15):3356; author reply 3356-7.
Score: 0.051
-
Rationale for phase I study of UFT plus leucovorin and oral JM-216. Oncology (Williston Park). 1997 Sep; 11(9 Suppl 10):26-9.
Score: 0.036
-
Promising new agents in oncologic treatment. Curr Opin Oncol. 1996 Nov; 8(6):525-34.
Score: 0.034
-
Estimation of renal cell carcinoma treatment effects from disease progression modeling. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Apr; 93(4):345-51.
Score: 0.026
-
Flavopiridol metabolism in cancer patients is associated with the occurrence of diarrhea. Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Sep; 6(9):3400-5.
Score: 0.011
-
Anticancer agents targeting signaling molecules and cancer cell environment: challenges for drug development? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Aug 04; 91(15):1281-7.
Score: 0.010