Pro/Con: Randomization in phase II clinical trials

Clinical Advances in Hematology and Oncology

Volumn 4, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 776-778

  Yothers, Greg ^a   Wieand, H Samuel ^a   Freireich, Emil J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZATION; RELIABILITY; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 33751263373     PISSN: 15430790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Simon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS. Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep. 1985;69:1375-1381.
2. Rubinstein LU, Korn EL, Freidlin B, et al. Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23: 7199-7206.
3. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:1-10.
4. Freireich EJ, Gehan EA, Rall DP, et al. Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey, and man. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:219-244.
5. Freireich EJ, Gehan EA. The limitations of the randomized clinical trial. In: Methods in Cancer Research. DeVita VT Jr, Busch H, eds. Academic Press; New York: 1979;17:177-210.
6. Liu PY, LeBlanc M, Desai M. False positive rates of randomized phase II designs. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20:343-352.
7. Estey EH, Thall PF. New designs for phase 2 clinical trials. Blood. 2003;102: 442-448.
8. Berry DA. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:27-36.