Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26757260›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016

Phase I trial outcomes in older patients with advanced solid tumours.

K H Khan, T A Yap, A Ring, L R Molife, S Bodla, K Thomas, A Zivi, A Smith, I Judson, U Banerji and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

12 authors.

K H KhanDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
T A YapDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
A RingBreast Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
L R MolifeDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
S BodlaDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
K ThomasDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
A ZiviDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
A SmithDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
I JudsonDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
U BanerjiDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
J S de BonoDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.
S B KayeDrug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCohort StudiesComorbidityDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID26757260
PMCPMC4742590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.