SynthesisInvestigational new drugs2010
Justification of the starting dose as the main determinant of accrual time in dose-seeking oncology phase 1 trials.
Synthesis in Investigational new drugs, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dose-levels and first signs of efficacy in contemporary oncology phase 1 clinical trials.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- Predictors for establishing recommended phase 2 doses: analysis of 320 dose-seeking oncology phase 1 trials.Investigational new drugs · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNew drug development is a time- and resource-consuming process. Phase 1 trials constitute a major key-step of this development. Shortening the accrual time is of major importance.
methods292 published phase-1-trials were retrospectively reviewed to establish the determinants of accrual time using Log-rank test and then Cox Model.
resultsOut of 292 trials (1997-2008), only 107 reports (36%) described the accrual time (median: 20 months, 5-72). Phase-2-recommended dose was established in 87 studies (81%). Most studies investigated regimens including cytotoxic drugs (77%) or molecular targeted therapies (29%). Under univariate analysis, two parameters shortened the accrual time: studies conducted in USA vs. other places (19 vs. 21 months p = 0.03) and regimen with more than 2 dose-escalated drugs (13 vs. 21 months, p = 0.003). One parameter was significantly associated with longer accrual time: starting dose justified by animal toxicology data vs. previous clinical trials (22 vs. 19 months, p = 0.03). Most of parameters did not significantly affect the accrual time: nature of investigated drugs, duration of treatment cycle, phase 1 dedicated to specific tumoral subtypes, number of centers, method of drug escalation (classical 3+3 vs. accelerated titration design), type of increment (modified Fibonacci method vs. others) and presence of expansion of cohort at the phase-II-recommended dose. Cox model analysis retained one determinant: starting dose justified by animal toxicology data: HR = 2.00 [1.45-5.20], p = 0.047.
conclusionFew parameters influence the accrual time of dose-escalation phase-1 trials. Real first-in-man phase 1 studies based on starting dose estimated from animal toxicological data require longer accrual time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19756372What 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.