ReviewCancers2022
A Brief Overview of Adaptive Designs for Phase I Cancer Trials.
Review in Cancers, 2022. 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.
- SPIRIT-DEFINE explanation and elaboration: recommendations for enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials protocols.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Approaches to modeling cancer metastasis: from bench to bedside.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- CONSORT-DEFINE explanation and elaboration: recommendations for enhancing reporting quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Translational Challenges and Prospective Solutions in the Implementation of Biomimetic Delivery Systems.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Enhancing reporting quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials: CONSORT Dose-finding Extension (CONSORT-DEFINE) guidance.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Safety and Tolerability of an Antimalarial Herbal Remedy in Healthy Volunteers: An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Dose-Escalation Study onTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Determining drug dose in the era of targeted therapies: playing it (un)safe?Blood cancer journal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phase I studies are used to estimate the dose-toxicity profile of the drugs and to select appropriate doses for successive studies. However, literature on statistical methods used for phase I studies are extensive. The objective of this review is to provide a concise summary of existing and emerging techniques for selecting dosages that are appropriate for phase I cancer trials. Many advanced statistical studies have proposed novel and robust methods for adaptive designs that have shown significant advantages over conventional dose finding methods. An increasing number of phase I cancer trials use adaptive designs, particularly during the early phases of the study. In this review, we described nonparametric and algorithm-based designs such as traditional 3 + 3, accelerated titration, Bayesian algorithm-based design, up-and-down design, and isotonic design. In addition, we also described parametric model-based designs such as continual reassessment method, escalation with overdose control, and Bayesian decision theoretic and optimal design. Ongoing studies have been continuously focusing on improving and refining the existing models as well as developing newer methods. This study would help readers to assimilate core concepts and compare different phase I statistical methods under one banner. Nevertheless, other evolving methods require future reviews.
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.