ArticleBritish journal of cancer2023
Clinical outcome and prognostic factors for Asian patients in Phase I clinical trials.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulating Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker for Selecting Participants to Early Phase Clinical Trials.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- Development of a Prognostic Model for Early Breast Cancer Integrating Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Clinical-Pathological Characteristics.The oncologist · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient selection is key in Phase I studies, and prognosis can be difficult to estimate in heavily pre-treated patients. Previous prognostic models like the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score or using the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have not been validated in current novel therapies nor in the Asian Phase I population.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of 414 patients with solid tumours participating in Phase I studies at our centre between October 2013 and December 2020.
resultsThe RMH model showed poorer prognosis with increasing scores [RMH score 1, HR 1.28 (95% CI: 0.96-1.70); RMH score 2, HR 2.27 (95% CI: 1.62-3.17); RMH score 3, HR 4.14 (95% CI: 2.62-6.53)]. NLR did not improve the AUC of the model. Poorer ECOG status (ECOG 1 vs. 0: HR = 1.59 (95% CI = 1.24-2.04), P < 0.001) and primary tumour site (GI vs. breast cancer: HR = 3.06, 95% CI = 2.16-4.35, P < 0.001) were prognostic.
conclusionsWe developed a NCIS prognostic score with excellent prognostic ability for both short-term and longer-term survival (iAUC: 0.71 [95% CI 0.65-0.76]), and validated the RMH model in the largest Asian study to date.
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.