ArticleJournal of biopharmaceutical statistics2009
Theoretical and practical application of traditional and accelerated titration Phase I clinical trial designs: the Wayne State University experience.
Article in Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The traditional and accelerated titration (AT) designs are two frequently utilized Phase I clinical trial designs. Although each design has theoretical advantages and disadvantages, a summary of the practical application of these theories has not been reported. We report our center's experience in evaluating novel agents using both types of Phase I trial designs over a 13-year period. Results from nine Phase I clinical trials of multiple cytotoxic agents conducted at Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, MI, and published from 1995-2005 were analyzed for this report. Parameters analyzed included the number of patients, the number of dose levels, the total time to completion of the study, and adverse events. The mean number of patients treated on four Phase I trials using the traditional Phase I trial design was 34 compared to a mean of 23.8 patients treated on five Phase I trials using the AT schema. The mean number of dose levels in patients treated using the traditional Phase I trial design was 8.8 (range 7-11) compared to a mean of 10.6 (range 7-15) dose levels using the AT design. The mean length of study time (25-26 months) was similar in both trial designs. The theoretical advantages and disadvantages of both Phase I trial designs did not readily emerge in their actual application in clinical trials conducted at our institution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.