ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Proportion of patients in phase 2 oncology trials receiving treatments that are ultimately approved.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- New oncology trial designs and equipoise: Commentary on Heynemann et al.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- The molecular similarity landscape of preclinical cancer models to patient tumors.JCI insight · 2026Article
- Trial design and end points in hepatocellular carcinoma: an EASL-AASLD-ILCA consensus statement.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Planned time burden for patients participating in phase 2 cancer trials.The oncologist · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany patients enroll in phase 1 dose expansion cohorts or phase 2 clinical trials (together referred to below as "phase 2") seeking access to novel treatments. Little is known about the extent to which they benefit by enrolling. Herein, we use a novel metric of benefit-therapeutic proportion-to assess the probability that patients in phase 2 trials receive treatment that eventually advances to FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval for their condition.
methodsWe randomly sampled 400 trials identified in a search of Clinicaltrials.gov for cancer phase 2 trials initiated between November 1, 2012 and November 1, 2015. We determined whether the drug/dose/indication tested in each trial advanced to FDA approval within 7.5 years. We determined whether the drug/dose/indication presented substantial clinical benefit using the ESMO-MCBS (European Society for Medical Oncology - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale), or whether it received off-label recommendation in NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines.
resultsCollectively, trials in our sample enrolled 25 002 patient-participants in 608 specific treatment cohorts. A total of 4045 patients received a treatment that advanced to FDA approval (16.2%; 95% CI = 10.3 to 22.7). The therapeutic proportion increased to 19.4% (95% CI = 14.1 to 25.8) when considering NCCN off-label recommendations and decreased to 9.3% (95% CI = 4.7 to 14.6) for FDA-approved regimens considered being of substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS. Bootstrap test of mean difference showed no statistical difference in proportions based on drug class, trial phase, or sponsorship.
conclusionOne in 6 patients in phase 2 clinical trials receives treatments that are eventually approved. This represents a higher therapeutic value than phase 1 trials.
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.