ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016
Phase I trial outcomes in older patients with advanced solid tumours.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The underreporting of phase III chemo-therapeutic clinical trial data of older patients with cancer: A systematic review.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Inequities in enrollment across clinical trial phases and the need for a Spanish perspective.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Therapeutic responses in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in early-phase clinical trials at MD Anderson.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Inclusion of Older Adults in Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trials: Safety, Efficacy and a Way Forward.Drugs & aging · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Access to early-phase clinical trials in older patients with cancer in France: the EGALICAN-2 study.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Clinical Predictors of Early Trial Discontinuation for Patients Participating in Phase I Clinical Trials in Oncology.Cancers · 2021Article
- First-In-Human Phase 1 Clinical Trials - A Single-Center Experience In The Era Of Modern Oncotherapeutics.Scientific reports · 2020Review
- Molecular Tumor Boards: Ethical Issues in the New Era of Data Medicine.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Risks and benefits of phase I liver dysfunction studies: should patients with severe liver dysfunction be included in these trials?Investigational new drugs · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study had two aims: (a) to test the hypothesis that advanced age is associated with lower levels of tolerability and clinical benefit to experimental Phase I trial agents; (b) to assess the validity of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score as a patient selection tool in older patients.
methodsClinico-pathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of all patients treated consecutively from 2005 to 2009 in phase I trials at the RMH were recorded. All toxicity and clinical outcome data were compared between patients aged below and above 65 years of age.
resultsOne thousand and four patients were treated in 30 Phase I trials, with 315 (31%) patients aged 65 years and older. Grade 3-5 toxicities (22.8% vs 24.8% (P=0.52)), trial discontinuation (6% vs 4%; P=0.33), and dose interruptions (8.0% vs 8.0% (P=0.96)) were observed at similar rates in patients below and above 65 years of age, respectively. The overall response rate 5.2% vs 4.1%, progression-free survival (PFS) 1.9 vs 3.5 months and clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 6 months 15.2% vs 14.3% were comparable in both groups. To avoid bias due to the potential therapeutic benefit of abiraterone, comparisons were repeated excluding prostate cancer patients with similar results (ORR 4.6% vs 4%, PFS 1.8 vs 3.0 months, CBR at 6 months 13.5% vs 9.5%). Multivariate analysis indicated that the previously identified RMH score (including albumin and lactate dehydrogenase levels) was an accurate predictor of outcome.
conclusionsPhase I clinical trials should be considered in patients with advanced cancers regardless of age, as older patients who enter these have similar safety and efficacy outcomes as their younger counterparts. The RMH prognostic score can assist in the selection of suitable older patients.
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.