Optimal and minimax three-stage designs for phase II oncology clinical trials

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 32-41

  Chen, Kun ^a   Shan, Michael ^b  

^a BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^b Bayer Pharmaceutical Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Average sample number; Maximal sample size; Minimax; Optimal; Three stage design; Two stage design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 36549009503     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Simon R. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials vol. 10 (1989) 1-10
2. Ensign L.G., Gehan E.A., Kamen D.S., and Thall P.F. An optimal three-stage design for phase II clinical trials. Stat Med vol. 13 (1994) 1727-1736
3. Chen T.T. Optimal three-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Stat Med vol. 16 (1997) 2701-2711
4. Fleming T.R. One sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics vol. 38 (1982) 143-151
5. Schultz J.R., Nichol F.R., Elfring G.L., and Weed S.D. Multiple-stage procedures for drug screening. Biometrics vol. 29 (1973) 293-300
6. Green S.J., and Dahlberg S. Planned versus attained design in phase II clinical trials. Stat Med vol. 11 (1992) 853-862