ArticleESMO open2017
Patient-reported tolerability of adverse events in phase 1 trials.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health-related quality of life as an endpoint in oncology phase I trials: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2019Pooled it
- PRO-ADD: Patient-empowered dose-finding trials integrating safety, preliminary efficacy and patient-reported outcomes for optimal dose selection.Statistical methods in medical research · 2026Article
- Prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in early phase oncology clinical trials: PEARLER.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Isotonic Phase I cancer clinical trial design utilizing patient-reported outcomes.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2025Article
- Exploring Novel Therapeutic Avenues: Drug Repurposing for Neurodegenerative Movement Disorders.Current drug research reviews · 2025Review
- Design a Clinical Research Protocol: Influence of Real-World Setting.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Optimizing dose-schedule regimens with bayesian adaptive designs: opportunities and challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
- Adverse event load, onset, and maximum grade: A novel method of reporting adverse events in cancer clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of toxicities related to novel therapy in clinical trials for women with gynecologic cancer.Cancer · 2020Article
- Realizing the Potential of the Patient Perspective.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Feasibility Assessment of Using the Complete Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) Item Library.The oncologist · 2019Article
- How I treat cancer special issue.ESMO open · 2019Article
- Beyond maximum grade: modernising the assessment and reporting of adverse events in haematological malignancies.The Lancet. Haematology · 2018Review
- Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.