An essay on rearranging the deck chairs: What's wrong with the cancer trials system? Commentary on Gray et al., p. 1966

Clinical Cancer Research

Volumn 12, Issue 7 I, 2006, Pages 1949-1950

  Raghavan, Derek ^a  

^a TAUSSIG CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG INDUSTRY; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; REIMBURSEMENT; SAMPLE SIZE;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33646236348     PISSN: 10780432     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0424     Document Type: Editorial

References (4)

1. Gray R, Manola J, Saxman S, et al. Phase II clinical trial design: methods in translational research from the Genitourinary Committee at the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:1966-9
2. Sylvester RJ, Staquet MJ. Design of phase II clinical trials in cancer using decision theory. Cancer Treat Rep 1980;64:519-24.
3. Warr D, McKinney S, Tannock I. Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:1040-6.
4. Clinical Trials Working Group: Report of the Clinical Trials Working Group of the National Cancer Advisory Board: restructuring the National Cancer Clinical Trials Enterprise. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2005. p. 1-77.