ReviewCancer medicine2019
Phase I and phase II clinical trials in sarcoma: Implications for drug discovery and development.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Trends in Clinical Trials for Pediatric Sarcoma in the United States: An Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Genetic Screen in a Preclinical Model of Sarcoma Development Defines Drivers and Therapeutic Vulnerabilities.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024Article
- Examining Stripes on a Herd of Zebras: Impact of Genomic Matching for Ultrarare Sarcomas in Phase 1 Clinical Trials (SAMBA 102).Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Article
- Naturally occurring canine sarcomas: Bridging the gap from mouse models to human patients through cross-disciplinary research partnerships.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Innovative approaches for treatment of osteosarcoma.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2022Review
- Eribulin activity in soft tissue sarcoma monolayer and three-dimensional cell line models: could the combination with other drugs improve its antitumoral effect?Cancer cell international · 2021Article
- Natural and Synthetic Oligoarylamides: Privileged Structures for Medical Applications.Chemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2021Review
- Real-World Outcomes of Pazopanib Treatment in Korean Patients with Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Targeted oncology · 2020Article
- Phase I and phase II clinical trials in sarcoma: Implications for drug discovery and development.Cancer medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been limited progress in the development of novel therapeutics for the treatment of sarcomas. A review of phase I and II clinical trials for sarcomas may give insight into factors influencing sarcoma drug development.
methodsAn exhaustive analysis of phase I and II clinical trials testing drugs for human sarcoma patients between 1 January 2000 and 1 June 2018 was performed using the PubMed search engine, the Thomson Web of Science, and the National Clinical Trials registry. Recorded outcomes included tested drugs, tested histological subtypes, whether the drug was initially developed for sarcoma, reported funding sources, and whether studies led to phase III trials.
resultsOut of 238 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 87% (207 studies) reported funding sources. Of these, 59.9% (124/207) reported industry funding, 52.7% (109/207) reported government funding, and 27.5% (57/207) reported private funding. Only 5% (12/238) of phase I and II trials resulted in phase III trials, with 11 of 12 studies funded by industry. Approximately 90% (214/238) of studies tested drugs that were not initially tested in sarcoma, and 60.1% (143/238) of studies grouped different sarcoma histological subtypes together in the same study.
conclusionIndustry has funded the majority of phase I and II sarcoma clinical trials that have led to phase III trials. There was a high rate of drugs approved for other cancers and then secondarily tested in sarcoma. Most trials tended to group different sarcoma subtypes rather than studying each subtype separately.
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.