ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2022
Recruitment, outcomes, and toxicity trends in phase I oncology trials: Six-year experience in a large institution.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in early phase oncology clinical trials: PEARLER.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- A perspective review on the systematic implementation of ctDNA in phase I clinical trial drug development.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025Review
- Early-phase clinical trials in the pandemic era: a four-year experience from an academic cancer center.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Travel Time and Distance and Participation in Precision Oncology Trials at the National Cancer Center Hospital.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Recruitment, outcomes, and toxicity trends in phase I oncology trials: Six-year experience in a large institution.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rapid influx of novel anti-cancer agents, phase I clinical trials in oncology are evolving. Historically, response rates on early phase trials have been modest with the clinical benefit and ethics of enrolment debated. However, there is a paucity of real-world data in this setting.
aimTo better understand the changing landscape of phase I oncology trials, we performed a retrospective review at our institution to examine patient and trial characteristics, screening outcomes, and treatment outcomes. METHODS AND
resultsWe analyzed all consecutive adult patients with advanced solid organ malignancies who were screened across phase I trials from January 2013 to December 2018 at a single institution. During this period, 242 patients were assessed for 28 different trials. Median age was 64 years (range 30-89) with an equal sex distribution. Among 257 screening visits, the overall screen failure rate was 18%, resulting in 212 patients being enrolled onto a study. Twenty-six trials (93%) involved immunotherapeutic agents or molecular targeted agents either alone or in combination, with only two trials of cytotoxic agents (7%). Twenty-two (13.4%) of the 209 treated patients experienced a total of 33 grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events. There was one treatment-related death (0.5%). Of 190 response-evaluable patients, 7 (4%) had a complete response, 34 (18%) a partial response, and 59 (31%) experienced stable disease for a disease control rate of 53%. The median overall survival for our cohort was 8.0 (95% CI: 6.8-9.2) months.
conclusionThe profile of phase I trials at our institution are consistent with the changing early drug development landscape. Response rates and overall survival in our cohort are superior to historically reported rates and comparable to contemporaneous studies. Severe treatment-related toxicity was relatively uncommon, and treatment-related mortality was rare.
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.