ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2016
Phase I Clinical Trials in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: 23-Year Experience From Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting the Epigenetic-Immune Axis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Current Advances and Future Directions.Current oncology reports · 2026Review
- Recent Developments and Future Perspectives of Purine Derivatives as a Promising Scaffold in Drug Discovery.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Article
- Trends in Grade 5 Toxicity and Response in Phase I Trials in Hematologic Malignancy: 20-Year Experience From the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has largely remained unchanged, and outcomes are unsatisfactory. We sought to analyze outcomes of AML patients enrolled in phase I studies to determine whether overall response rates (ORR) and mortality rates have changed over time.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 711 adult AML patients enrolling in 45 phase I clinical trials supported by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute from 1986 to 2009. Changes in ORR and mortality rates for patients enrolled in 1986 to 1990, 1991 to 1995, 1996 to 2000, 2001 to 2005, and 2006 to 2009 were estimated with multivariable logistic regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided.
resultsThere was a statistically significant increase in AML patients enrolling in phase I clinical trials over time (1986 to 1990: n = 61; 2006 to 2009: n = 256; P = .03). The ORR for the entire cohort was 15.4% (1986 to 1990: 8.9%, 1991 to 1995: 21.1%; 1996 to 2000: 7.0%; 2001 to 2005: 10.0%; 2006 to 2009: 22.6%), and it statistically significantly improved over time (P < .001). There was a statistically significant improvement in ORRs with novel agents in combination vs single agents (ORR = 22.8% vs 4.7%, respectively, odds ratio = 5.95, 95% confidence interval = 3.22 to 11.9, P < .001). The 60-day mortality rate for the entire cohort was 22.6%, but it statistically significantly improved over time (P = .009).
conclusionsThere has been an encouraging increase in AML patients enrolling in phase I clinical studies over time. The improvement in ORRs appears to be partly because of the increase in combination trials and the inclusion of previously untreated poor-risk AML. Continued enrollment of AML patients in early phase clinical trials is vital for drug development and improvement in therapeutic outcomes.
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.