Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27149667›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

A Case-Control Study Brings to Light the Causes of Screen Failures in Phase 1 Cancer Clinical Trials.

Emmanuelle Kempf, Nathalie Lemoine, Gabrielle Tergemina-Clain, Anthony Turpin, Sophie Postel-Vinay, Emilie Lanoy, Jean-Charles Soria, Christophe Massard, Antoine Hollebecque

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Emmanuelle KempfGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Drug Development Department, Villejuif, France.
Nathalie LemoineGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Drug Development Department, Villejuif, France.
Gabrielle Tergemina-ClainGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Biostatistics and Epidemiology unit, Villejuif, France.
Anthony TurpinGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Drug Development Department, Villejuif, France.
Sophie Postel-VinayGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Drug Development Department, Villejuif, France.
Emilie LanoyGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Biostatistics and Epidemiology unit, Villejuif, France.
Jean-Charles SoriaGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Drug Development Department, Villejuif, France.
Christophe MassardGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Drug Development Department, Villejuif, France.
Antoine HollebecqueGustave-Roussy Cancer Campus, Drug Development Department, Villejuif, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEnrolling cancer patients in phase I clinical trials (P1s) requires that they fulfill specific criteria. Between the time they sign the consent form and the 1st administration of the experimental drug, some patients may be excluded and considered as screen failures (SFs). Our objective was to assess SF patients profiles and the reasons and risk factors for SFs. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll patients included in P1s at Gustave Roussy from 2008 to 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. SFs were matched with control P1 patients who were successfully enrolled. Patient and tumor characteristics, P1 types and the reasons for SF were analyzed.

resultsAmong 1,293 patients, 192 (15%) were SF cases; 182 SF cases were matched with 182 controls: median age was 57 (48-64) and 55 (47-63), median home-cancer center distance was 69 vs 55 km, 45% vs 34% had more than 2 metastatic sites, median screening period was 14 vs 11 days, median progression-free survival during the previous line was 12 vs 14 weeks, 37% vs 29% of LDH values were above the upper limit of normal, 42% vs 36% of albumin values were < 35 g/L, respectively. Reasons for SFs were cancer progression (44%), sponsor decision unrelated to a clinical reason (25%), patient retrieval (13.5%), relevant comorbidity (13.5%). Multivariate analysis revealed that a high Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score was potentially associated with higher risk of SFs (OR = 2.3; 95% CI [1.0-5.7], p = 0.06).

conclusionCancer progression led to half of the SFs in P1s. Physicians should pay attention to the RMH score at the time of patient inclusion to avoid further SFs.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCase-Control StudiesClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID27149667
PMCPMC4858154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.