ArticlePloS one2016
A Case-Control Study Brings to Light the Causes of Screen Failures in Phase 1 Cancer Clinical Trials.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic prediction of patients early discontinuation in oncology clinical trials.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Access to early-phase clinical trials in older patients with cancer in France: the EGALICAN-2 study.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria and Recently Approved Cancer Therapies for Patients With Brain Metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Before Consent: Qualitative Analysis of Deliberations of Patients With Advanced Cancer About Early-Phase Clinical Trials.JCO oncology practice · 2020Article
- Plasma total cell-free DNA is a prognostic biomarker of overall survival in metastatic solid tumour patients.British journal of cancer · 2019Article
- Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development.The oncologist · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.