Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35263120›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2022

Trends in Grade 5 Toxicity and Response in Phase I Trials in Hematologic Malignancy: 20-Year Experience From the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute.

Dai Chihara, Erich P Huang, Shanda R Finnigan, Lisa M Cordes, Nebojsa Skorupan, Yoko Fukuda, Larry V Rubinstein, S Percy Ivy, James H Doroshow, Loretta J Nastoupil and 2 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Dai ChiharaDepartment of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-1153-2294
Erich P HuangBiometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Shanda R FinniganDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-0555-8965
Lisa M CordesGenitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0003-3833-4084
Nebojsa SkorupanMedical Oncology Service, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0003-0854-3360
Yoko FukudaDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-4340-5492
Larry V RubinsteinBiometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-9720-9737
S Percy IvyDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0001-7747-072X
James H DoroshowDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Loretta J NastoupilDepartment of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Christopher R FlowersDepartment of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0002-9524-3990
Naoko TakebeDivision of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-5790-4954

Funding

Phase 01 Clinical TrialsZIABC011078 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI DOROSHOW, JAMES · 2009 to 2025
$9.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCancer drug development has largely shifted from cytotoxic chemotherapy to targeted treatment in the past two decades. Although previous studies have highlighted improvement in response rates in recent phase I trials, disease-focused reporting is limited.

methodsWe integrated patient-level data for patients with hematologic malignancies who participated in phase I trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program between January 2000 and May 2019 and estimated the trend of grade 5 toxicity and response by disease subtype over time.

resultsWe analyzed 161 trials involving 3,308 patients, all of whom were assessed for toxicity and 2,404 of whom were evaluable for response to therapy. The overall rate of grade 5 toxicities was 1.81% (95% CI, 1.36 to 2.27), with no significant change in the rate over time. Baseline characteristics associated with higher risk of grade 5 toxicity were age and performance status ≥ 2 at enrollment. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate for all trials during the study period were 25.1% and 14.7%, respectively. A significant increase in both ORR and CR rate was observed over time (ORR, 18.5% in 2000-2005, 25.9% in 2006-2012, and 50.6% in 2013-2019,

conclusionOver time, the ORR and CR rates in phase I trials for hematologic malignancy have improved meaningfully, whereas the rate of toxicity-related death remains stable. This study provides broad experience that physicians can use when discussing the potential outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy considering participation in phase I trials.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsHematologic NeoplasmsLeukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-CellLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteHumansNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)United StatesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID35263120
PMCPMC9177250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.