Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26225225›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2015

Developing Exposure/Response Models for Anticancer Drug Treatment: Special Considerations.

D R Mould, A-C Walz, T Lave, J P Gibbs, B Frame

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Growth-rate model predicts in vivo tumor response from in vitro data.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

D R MouldProjections Research Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, USA.
A-C WalzRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Modeling & Simulation, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Roche Innovation Center Basel F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
T LaveRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Modeling & Simulation, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Roche Innovation Center Basel F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
J P GibbsAmgen Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
B FrameProjections Research Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anticancer agents often have a narrow therapeutic index (TI), requiring precise dosing to ensure sufficient exposure for clinical activity while minimizing toxicity. These agents frequently have complex pharmacology, and combination therapy may cause schedule-specific effects and interactions. We review anticancer drug development, showing how integration of modeling and simulation throughout development can inform anticancer dose selection, potentially improving the late-phase success rate. This article has a companion article in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics with practical examples.

Identifiers

PMID26225225
PMCPMC4369756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.