Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28761740›Full record

ArticleESMO open2017

Patient-reported tolerability of adverse events in phase 1 trials.

Clémence Henon, Delphine Lissa, Xavier Paoletti, Constance Thibault, Christophe Le Tourneau, Emilie Lanoy, Antoine Hollebecque, Christophe Massard, Jean-Charles Soria, Sophie Postel-Vinay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Realizing the Potential of the Patient Perspective.Patient preference and adherence · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

10 authors.

Clémence HenonDrug Development department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
Delphine LissaDrug Development department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
Xavier PaolettiBiostatistics and Epidemiology Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France.
Constance ThibaultDrug Development department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
Christophe Le TourneauDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Emilie LanoyBiostatistics and Epidemiology Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France.
Antoine HollebecqueDrug Development department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
Christophe MassardDrug Development department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
Jean-Charles SoriaDrug Development department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.
Sophie Postel-VinayDrug Development department (DITEP), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhase I experts recommend revisiting dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition to include chronic and cumulative toxicities induced by new molecularly targeted therapies. Patient's assessment of late toxicities' tolerability is, however, unknown. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective survey on adverse events (AEs) tolerability on 23 National Cancer InstituteCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event, Version 4 (NCI-CTCAE.v4) items was conducted at Gustave Roussy's Phase I department. Patients' maximum tolerability duration was recorded at baseline, during trial and at trial completion. Results were compared with the corresponding physicians' survey.

results52 patients enrolled in 27 Phase I trials between May 2014 and November 2015 completed 102 forms. At baseline, the most feared G2/G3 AEs were haematuria (74%), vomiting (71%) and hyperglycemia (64%)/dry mouth (94%), hyperglycemia (92%) and vomiting (92%). At trial completion, the most feared G2/G3 AEs were personality change (83.3%), haematuria (82%) and fever (80%)/dry mouth, fever and dizziness (100% each). Tolerability score did not differ over time. More previous treatments and occurrence of severe AEs were associated with better tolerability at study completion (p=0.0234 and p=0.0153, respectively, in multivariate analysis). Patient's tolerability differed from physician's assessment.

conclusionAEs considered intolerable by patients are toxicities that directly impact their quality of life and differ from those feared by physicians or included in DLT definition. Patient-reported tolerability of AEs may help in optimising drug development.

Indexed as

adverse eventDose limiting toxicitypatient reported outcomephase 1tolerability

Identifiers

PMID28761740
PMCPMC5519806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.