ReviewCancers2024
Dose Optimization of Targeted Therapies for Oncologic Indications.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hydrazones as Potential Antimelanoma Prototypes: A Systematic and Patent Review.Anti-cancer agents in medicinal chemistry · 2026Pooled it
- Exploiting Metabolic Vulnerabilities in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Rationale and Evidence for Combining Metabolic Modulators with Conventional Chemotherapy.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Implementing Project Optimus in Oncology Dosage Optimization: Where are We Now?Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Early Ibrutinib Dose Modifications in CLL: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Real-World EVIdeNCE Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- Article
- The Three Musketeers in Cancer Therapy: Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Personalised Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical Impacts of Immunogenicity in Approved Antibody Drugs in Japan: A Quantitative Evaluation of Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Safety Outcomes.The AAPS journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic advances in oncology in the 21st century have contributed to significant declines in cancer mortality. Notably, targeted therapies comprised the largest proportion of oncology drugs approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past 25 years and have become the standard of care for the treatment of many cancers. However, despite the metamorphosis of the therapeutic landscape, some aspects of cancer drug development have remained essentially unchanged. In particular, the dose-finding methodology originally developed for cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs continues to be implemented, even though this approach no longer represents the most appropriate strategy for modern cancer therapies. In recognition of the need to reconsider assumptions, adapt the dose selection process for newer drugs, and design alternative strategies, the FDA has undertaken several initiatives in recent years to address these concerns. These actions include the launch of Project Optimus in 2021 and the issuance of draft guidance for industry on dose optimization of oncology drugs in 2023. Amid this evolving regulatory environment, the present manuscript reviews case studies for six different targeted cancer therapies, highlighting how dose-finding challenges have been managed to date by oncologists, sponsors, and regulators.
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.