Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29462168›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2018

Risk and surrogate benefit for pediatric Phase I trials in oncology: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Marcin Waligora, Malgorzata M Bala, Magdalena Koperny, Mateusz T Wasylewski, Karolina Strzebonska, Rafał R Jaeschke, Agnieszka Wozniak, Jan Piasecki, Agnieszka Sliwka, Jerzy W Mitus and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Ethical Challenges in Pediatric Oncology Care and Clinical Trials.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

14 authors.

Marcin WaligoraResearch Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-1553-1416
Malgorzata M BalaDepartment of Hygiene and Dietetics, Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Magdalena KopernyResearch Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Mateusz T WasylewskiResearch Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Karolina StrzebonskaResearch Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Rafał R JaeschkeSection of Affective Disorders, Department of Psychiatry, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Agnieszka WozniakAgency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System, Warsaw, Poland.
Jan PiaseckiResearch Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-1298-736X
Agnieszka SliwkaResearch Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Jerzy W MitusDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Kraków, Poland.
Maciej PolakResearch Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Dominika NowisDepartment of Immunology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Dean FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Jonathan KimmelmanStudies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiomarkersChildClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicHumansMedical OncologyPediatricsRisk FactorsBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID29462168
PMCPMC5819765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.