Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14520440›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2003

Comparison of prognostic factors in patients in phase I trials of cytotoxic drugs vs new noncytotoxic agents.

C Han, J P Braybrooke, G Deplanque, M Taylor, D Mackintosh, K Kaur, K Samouri, T S Ganesan, A L Harris, D C Talbot

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Phase 1 clinical trials in end-stage cancer: patient understanding of trial premises and motives for participation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. New target-based agents involve new clinical trial designs.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2006
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

C HanCancer Research UK Medical Oncology Unit, Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK.
J P Braybrooke
G Deplanque
M Taylor
D Mackintosh
K Kaur
K Samouri
T S Ganesan
A L Harris
D C Talbot
Cancer Research UK · GBChurchill Hospital · GBUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aims of this study were to identify prognostic variables for toxicity and survival in patients with cancer participating in phase I clinical trials and compare characteristics of those treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT) and non-cytotoxic drugs (non-CT). Data were collected from 420 (114 CT, 306 non-CT) patients enrolled in 16 phase I trials (five CT and 11 non-CT trials) in one cancer centre. Analyses of all patients were used to compare treatment groups, identify predictive variables for toxicity and to estimate prognostic factors in overall survival (OS). These were used to develop a prognostic index (PI). Multivariate analysis found those patients with better performance status, fewer sites of metastases, baseline Hb>12 g dl(-1) and WBC or LDH in the normal range had significantly better OS. Male gender, platelet count <450 x 10(9) l(-1), high WBC or treatment with a non-CT phase I agent significantly reduced the chance of grade 3/4 toxicity. Overall survival was not significantly different between the CT and non-CT groups (260 vs 192 days, P=0.47) except for those with liver metastases (228 vs 137 days, P=0.02). Overall tumour response was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.7-7.0%). The PI identified three distinct patient groups with median survival of 321, 257 and 117 days. In conclusion, entry into a phase I trial of a non-CT drug is a safe option for heavily pretreated patients with cancer. The PI generated from these data can estimate the survival probability for patients entering phase I studies.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSurvival RateAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID14520440
PMCPMC2394292
OpenAlexW2029409483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.