SynthesisPloS one2011
Dose-levels and first signs of efficacy in contemporary oncology phase 1 clinical trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthy volunteers in first-in-human oncology drug development for small molecules.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Review
- Stomatitis And Everolimus: A Review Of Current Literature On 8,201 Patients.OncoTargets and therapy · 2019Article
- Unveiling changes in the landscape of patient populations in cancer early drug development.Oncotarget · 2017Review
- Targeting notch signaling pathway in cancer: clinical development advances and challenges.Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2014Review
- Mechanism-driven phase I translational study of trifluoperazine in adults with sickle cell disease.European journal of pharmacology · 2014Article
- Comparative clinical pharmacokinetics of antibody-drug conjugates in first-in-human Phase 1 studies.mAbsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePhase 1 trials play a crucial role in oncology by translating laboratory science into efficient therapies. Molecular targeted agents (MTA) differ from traditional cytotoxics in terms of both efficacy and toxicity profiles. Recent reports suggest that higher doses are not essential to produce the optimal anti-tumor effect. This study aimed to assess if MTA could achieve clinical benefit at much lower dose than traditional cytotoxics in dose seeking phase 1 trials. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe reviewed 317 recent phase 1 oncology trials reported in the literature between January 1997 and January 2009. First sign of efficacy, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and their associated dose level were recorded in each trial.
resultsTrials investigating conventional cytotoxics alone, MTA alone and combination of both represented respectively 63.0% (201/317), 23.3% (74/317) and 13.7% (42/317) of all trials. The MTD was reached in 65.9% (209/317) of all trials and was mostly observed at the fifth dose level. First sign of efficacy was less frequently observed at the first three dose-levels for MTA as compared to conventional cytotoxics or combinations regimens (48.3% versus 63.2% and 61.3%). Sign of efficacy was observed in the same proportion whatever the treatment type (73-82%). MTD was less frequently established in trials investigating MTA alone (51.3%) or combinations (42.8%) as compared to conventional cytotoxic agents (75.6%).
conclusionFirst sign of efficacy was less frequently reported at the early dose-levels and MTD was less frequently reached in trials investigating molecular targeted therapy alone. Similar proportion of trials reported clinical benefit.
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.