Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36860652›Full record

ArticleCancer research communications2023

Phase I Trial of Intravenous Mistletoe Extract in Advanced Cancer.

Channing J Paller, Lin Wang, Wei Fu, Rajendra Kumar, Jennifer N Durham, Nilofer S Azad, Daniel A Laheru, Ilene Browner, Sushant K Kachhap, Kavya Boyapati and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. MISTOSUS: a phase II trial ofFuture oncology (London, England) · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Mistletoe in Cancer Cell Biology: Recent Advances.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Review
  9. 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

18 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Channing J PallerThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-3658-1858
Lin WangDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-2046-4366
Wei FuThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-0996-1137
Rajendra KumarThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-2845-8115
Jennifer N DurhamThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-9097-9125
Nilofer S AzadThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-9613-3988
Daniel A LaheruThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-6646-0200
Ilene BrownerThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-9914-6971
Sushant K KachhapThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-6892-0140
Kavya BoyapatiThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-1731-7480
Thomas OdenyCenter for Cancer Research, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-1644-2378
Deborah K ArmstrongThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-0852-803X
Christian F MeyerThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-3329-7106
Stephanie GaillardThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-2174-3693
Julie R BrahmerThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-2443-8395
Ivelisse PageThe Believe Big Institute of Health, Believe Big Inc., Cockeysville, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-9020-8443
Hao WangThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-6489-6940
Luis A DiazDivision of Solid Tumor Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-7079-8914
Johns Hopkins University · USCenter for Cancer Research · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USOspedale degli Infermi · IT

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM George NELSON · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Mistletoe extract (ME) is widely used for patients with cancer to support therapy and to improve quality of life (QoL). However, its use is controversial due to suboptimal trials and a lack of data supporting its intravenous administration. Materials and Methods: This phase I trial of intravenous mistletoe (Helixor M) aimed to determine the recommended phase II dosing and to evaluate safety. Patients with solid tumor progressing on at least one line of chemotherapy received escalating doses of Helixor M three times a week. Assessments were also made of tumor marker kinetics and QoL. Results: Twenty-one patients were recruited. The median follow-up duration was 15.3 weeks. The MTD was 600 mg. Treatment-related adverse events (AE) occurred in 13 patients (61.9%), with the most common being fatigue (28.6%), nausea (9.5%), and chills (9.5%). Grade 3+ treatment-related AEs were noted in 3 patients (14.8%). Stable disease was observed in 5 patients who had one to six prior therapies. Reductions in baseline target lesions were observed in 3 patients who had two to six prior therapies. Objective responses were not observed. The disease control rate (percentage of complete/partial response and stable disease) was 23.8%. The median stable disease was 15 weeks. Serum cancer antigen-125 or carcinoembryonic antigen showed a slower rate of increase at higher dose levels. The median QoL by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General increased from 79.7 at week 1 to 93 at week 4. Conclusions: Intravenous mistletoe demonstrated manageable toxicities with disease control and improved QoL in a heavily pretreated solid tumor population. Future phase II trials are warranted. Significance: Although ME is widely used for cancers, its efficacy and safety are uncertain. This first phase I trial of intravenous mistletoe (Helixor M) aimed to determine phase II dosing and to evaluate safety. We recruited 21 patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic solid tumor. Intravenous mistletoe (600 mg, 3/week) demonstrated manageable toxicities (fatigue, nausea, and chills) with disease control and improved QoL. Future research can examine ME's effect on survival and chemotherapy tolerability.

Indexed as

MistletoeNeoplasmsAdministration, IntravenousChillsFatigueHumansNauseaQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID36860652
PMCPMC9973409
OpenAlexW4319728721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.