SynthesisJournal of pediatric hematology/oncology2016
Phase I and Phase II Objective Response Rates are Correlated in Pediatric Cancer Trials: An Argument for Better Clinical Trial Efficiency.
Synthesis in Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic responses in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in early-phase clinical trials at MD Anderson.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Predictors of Success of Phase II Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials.The oncologist · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although many phase I trials report tumor response, formal analysis of efficacy is deferred to phase II. We reviewed paired phase I and II pediatric oncology trials to ascertain the relationship between phase I and II objective response rate (OR%). Single-agent phase I trials were paired with corresponding phase II trials (comparable study drug, dosing schedule, and population). Phase I trials without efficacy data or a matching phase II trial were excluded. OR% was tabulated for all trials, and phase II authors' subjective conclusions regarding efficacy were documented; 35 pairs of trials were analyzed. The correlation between phase I and II OR% was 0.93. Between phase II studies with a "positive" conclusion versus a "negative" one, there was a statistically significant difference in mean phase I OR% (32.0% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001). Thirteen phase II studies were undertaken despite phase I OR% of 0%; only 1 had a "positive" conclusion, and none exceeded OR% of 15%. OR% are highly correlated between phase I and II pediatric oncology trials. Although not a formal measure of drug efficacy, phase I OR% may provide an estimate of phase II response, inform phase II study design, and should be given greater consideration.
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.