SynthesisPLoS medicine2018
Risk and surrogate benefit for pediatric Phase I trials in oncology: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk and Benefit for Basket Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Targeted oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Risk and Benefit for Targeted Therapy Agents in Pediatric Phase II Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis.Targeted oncology · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Pediatric Phase I Trials in Oncology: Toxicity and Outcomes in the Era of Targeted Therapies.The oncologist · 2020Pooled it
- Risk and benefit for targeted therapy agents in paediatric phase I trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Proportion of patients in phase 2 oncology trials receiving treatments that are ultimately approved.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials in the Middle East and North Africa: A Review of the Current Status, Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024Review
- Safety and outcome of children, adolescents and young adults participating in phase I/II clinical oncology trials: a 9-year center experience.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Acceptable Risks in Pediatric Research: Views of the US Public.Pediatrics · 2022Article
- Do the Potential Medical Benefits of Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Trials Justify the Risks? Views of the United States Public.The Journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Ethical Challenges in Pediatric Oncology Care and Clinical Trials.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2021Article
- Clinical development success rates and social value of pediatric Phase 1 trials in oncology.PloS one · 2020Article
- Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2019Review
- Reprioritizing Risk and Benefit: The Future of Study Design in Early-Phase Cancer Research.Ethics & human research · 2019Article
- Umbrella and basket trials in oncology: ethical challenges.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Molecular characteristics and therapeutic vulnerabilities across paediatric solid tumours.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2019Review
- CAR T cells for childhood diffuse midline gliomas.Nature medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials. METHODS AND
findingsOur protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as "small sample size, non‑randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested." We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, accounting for 4,604 patients. The pooled overall objective response rate was 10.29% (95% CI 8.33% to 12.25%), and was lower in solid tumors, 3.17% (95% CI 2.62% to 3.72%), compared with hematological malignancies, 27.90% (95% CI 20.53% to 35.27%); p < 0.001. The overall fatal (grade 5) AE rate was 2.09% (95% CI 1.45% to 2.72%). Across the 4,604 evaluated patients, there were 4,675 grade 3 and 4 drug-related AEs, with an average grade 3/4 AE rate per person equal to 1.32. Our study had the following limitations: trials included in our review were heterogeneous (to minimize heterogeneity, we separated types of therapy and cancer types), and we relied on published data only and encountered challenges with the quality of reporting.
conclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that, on the whole, AE and response rates in pediatric Phase I trials are similar to those in adult Phase I trials. Our findings provide an empirical basis for the refinement and review of pediatric Phase I trials, and for communication about their risk and benefit.
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.