Trial reportJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2024
Comparison of efficacy discrepancy between early-phase clinical trials and phase III trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.
Trial report in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atezolizumab plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab as first-line treatment of advanced triple-negative breast cancer: the ATRACTIB phase 2 trial.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- Review
- High PVR protein expression marks clear cell renal cell carcinoma with metastatic spread.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Mapping the evolution of immune checkpoint inhibitor research in small cell lung cancer: A bibliometric analysis (1997-2025).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Immunomodulatory nanoplatforms with multiple mechanisms of action in cancer treatment.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Emerging Ethical Challenges in Manufacturing of Cell-Based Medicines.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- The broad spectrum of cancer and immunotherapy: achievements and limitations.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- An evaluation of selinexor's clinical trial portfolio: a cross-sectional study.Therapeutic advances in hematology · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhase III clinical trials are pivotal for evaluating therapeutics, yet a concerning failure rate has been documented, particularly impacting oncology where accelerated approvals of immunotherapies are common. These failures are predominantly attributed to a lack of therapeutic efficacy, indicating overestimation of results from phase II studies. Our research aims to systematically assess overestimation in early-phase trials involving programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand 1(PD-L1) inhibitors compared with phase III trials and identify contributing factors.
methodsWe matched 51 pairs of early-phase and phase III clinical trials from a pool of over 9,600 PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor trials. The matching criteria included identical treatment regimens, cancer types, treatment lines, and biomarker enrichment strategies. To assess overestimation, we compared the overall response rates (ORR) between early-phase and phase III trials. We established independent variables related to eligibility criteria, and trial design features of participants to analyze the factors influencing the observed discrepancy in efficacy between the two phases through univariable and multivariable logistic analyses.
resultEarly-phase trial outcomes systematically overestimated the subsequent phase III results, yielding an odds ratio (OR) comparing ORR in early-phase versus phase III: 1.66 (95% CI: 1.43 to 1.92, p<0.05). This trend of inflated ORR was consistent across trials testing PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapies and combination therapies involving PD-1/PD-L1. Among the examined factors, the exclusion of patients with autoimmune diseases was significantly associated with the disparity in efficacy between early-phase trials and phase III trials (p=0.023). We calculated a Ward statistic of 2.27 to validate the effectiveness of the model.
conclusionThese findings underscore the tendency of overestimation of efficacy in early-phase trials involving immunotherapies. The observed differences could be attributed to variations in the inclusion of patients with autoimmune disorders in early-phase trials. These insights have the potential to inform stakeholders in the future development of cancer immunotherapies.
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.