Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26471236›Full record

Trial reportCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2015

Phase Ib Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Dose Escalation Study of Polyphenon E in Patients with Barrett's Esophagus.

Andrew K Joe, Felice Schnoll-Sussman, Robert S Bresalier, Julian A Abrams, Hanina Hibshoosh, Ken Cheung, Richard A Friedman, Chung S Yang, Ginger L Milne, Diane D Liu and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Randomized Controlled Trial of the Gastrin/CCKCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Chemoprevention in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Scientific opinion on the safety of green tea catechins.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Cancer Preventive Activities of Tea Catechins.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016
    Review
  19. Review
  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

23 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew K JoeDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York. akj3@cumc.columbia.edu.
Felice Schnoll-SussmanDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
Robert S BresalierGastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Julian A AbramsDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Hanina HibshooshDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Ken CheungHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Richard A FriedmanHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Chung S YangDepartment of Chemical Biology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Ginger L MilneDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University, Brentwood, Tennessee.
Diane D LiuDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
J Jack LeeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Kazeem AbdulHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Michelle BiggDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
Jessica ForemanGastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Tao SuHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Xiaomei WangHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Aqeel AhmedHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Alfred I NeugutDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Esther AkpaDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Scott M LippmanMoores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Marjorie PerloffDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Powel H BrownDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Charles J LightdaleDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USCornell University · USNational Cancer Institute · MYRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity of California San Diego · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Tissue Analysis & Molecular Imaging CoreP30DK056338 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI James Versalovic · 2001 to 2026
$28.3M
PHASE I and II CLINICAL TRIALS OF CHEMOPREVENTIVE AGENTS-261035159-261035159N01CN035159 · CN · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M D ANDER · PI LIPPMAN, SCOTT M. · 2004 to 2006
–
NCI NIH HHS N01 CN035159NCI NIH HHS N01-CN-035159NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of the green tea-derived Polyphenon E (Poly E) in patients with Barrett's Esophagus (BE). Subjects were randomized to a 6-month, twice daily (BID) oral treatment of placebo or Poly E (200, 400, or 600 mg). Endoscopic evaluation, including biopsies, was performed before and after treatment. The primary objective was to demonstrate safety; secondary objectives investigated catechin accumulation and effects in clinical specimens. Of the 44 enrolled subjects, 11 received placebo, and 33 received Poly E. No dose-limiting toxicities were encountered, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. The recommended phase II dose was 600 mg twice daily. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) in Poly E-treated subjects were grade I and II nausea, grade I belching, and grade I lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) elevation. No treatment-related AEs were reported in placebo-treated subjects, aside from grade I laboratory abnormalities. Pill counts and subject diaries were not consistently collected, and compliance was difficult to determine. However, on the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis, there was a significant relationship between Poly E dose and esophageal EGCG level--mean changes (pmol/g) of 0.79 (placebo), 6.06 (200 mg), 35.67 (400 mg), and 34.95 (600 mg); P = 0.005. There was a possible relationship between Poly E dose and urine PGE-M concentration. In conclusion, Poly E was well-tolerated, and treatment with Poly E (400 and 600 mg) but not Poly E (200 mg) or placebo resulted in clinically relevant and detectable EGCG accumulation in the target organ, esophageal mucosa.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBarrett EsophagusBiopsyCatechinChromatography, High Pressure LiquidDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodEsophagoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhytotherapyCatechinepigallocatechin gallatepolyphenon E

Identifiers

PMID26471236
PMCPMC4670789
OpenAlexW2256204642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.