ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2024
Latest Developments in "Adaptive Enrichment" Clinical Trial Designs in Oncology.
Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2024. 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.
- Review
- The Translational Paradox of Cancer Nanomedicine: Biological, Pharmacokinetic, and Manufacturing Barriers to Clinical Success.Biology · 2026Review
- Review
- Radiobiotherapy in Osteosarcoma: A State-Based Educational Framework for Strategy Selection and Trial Design.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Targeting tumor transition windows.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026Review
- Solving the 'Goldilocks problem' in dementia clinical trials with multimodal AI.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025Article
- Context-specific targeting of focal adhesion kinase in brain tumors: lessons from glioblastoma and neurofibromatosis type 2-mutant meningioma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As cancer has become better understood on the molecular level with the evolution of gene sequencing techniques, considerations for individualized therapy using predictive biomarkers (those associated with a treatment's effect) have shifted to a new level. In the last decade or so, randomized "adaptive enrichment" clinical trials have become increasingly utilized to strike a balance between enrolling all patients with a given tumor type, versus enrolling only a subpopulation whose tumors are defined by a potential predictive biomarker related to the mechanism of action of the experimental therapy. In this review article, we review recent innovative design extensions and adaptations to adaptive enrichment designs proposed during the last few years in the clinical trial methodology literature, both from Bayesian and frequentist perspectives.
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.