ArticleBritish journal of cancer2018
Time to progression ratio in cancer patients enrolled in early phase clinical trials: time for new guidelines?
Article in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intrapatient comparisons of efficacy in a single-arm trial of entrectinib in tumour-agnostic indications.ESMO open · 2021Trial
- Time-to-progression ratio as a potential study endpoint in early-phase oncology trials: pooled analysis of phase II trials from the Australian MoST program.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- The Growth Modulation Index (GMI) as an Efficacy Outcome in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review with Suggested Reporting Guidelines.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
- Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2025Review
- The progression-free survival ratio as outcome measure in recurrent ovarian carcinoma patients: Current and future perspectives.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2022Article
- Transitioning the Molecular Tumor Board from Proof of Concept to Clinical Routine: A German Single-Center Analysis.Cancers · 2021Article
- Moving Molecular Profiling to Routine Clinical Practice: A Way Forward?Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable evaluation of treatment benefit in early phase clinical trials is necessary. The time to progression ratio (TTPr), which compares successive TTP in a single patient, is a powerful criteria for determining targeted or immune therapies efficacy.
methodsWe evaluated 205 TTPr in a large cohort of 177 advanced cancer patients enrolled in at least two Phase 1/1b trials (out of 2827 phase 1/1b-treated patients) at Gustave Roussy.
resultsThis first wide description of TTPr showed that, under the hypothesis of overall absence of treatment line effect, the median TTPr was 0.7 and that 25% of patients presented a TTPr above the conventional efficacy threshold of 1.3.
conclusionsA higher median TTPr and a larger proportion of patients above the 1.3 threshold should therefore be achieved to conclude to drug efficacy. New guidelines for TTPr interpretation and calibration are proposed, which warrant independent prospective validation.
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.