ReviewAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2025
Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.
Review in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Driving emerging technology to clinical impact.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2026Review
- Inequities in enrollment across clinical trial phases and the need for a Spanish perspective.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Modulating Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Solid Tumors in Immunotherapy Trials: A Drug Interaction Analysis from a Phase I Unit.Cancer research communications · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The scope of phase I clinical trials in oncology goes beyond the conventional safety evaluation-only objectives of these trials in other specialties. Rather, most first-in-human oncology clinical trials have therapeutic intent, and efficacy signals observed in phase I trials can drive a go/no-go decision of advancing a new molecule to phase II testing. The complexity of efficacy assessment in the context of a small, heterogeneous patient population and a complex study design requires a more liberal perspective compared with later trial phases when looking into efficacy endpoints. Classically, in later-phase clinical trials, these endpoints would include the objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. However, new, evolving endpoints may be worth investigating when looking into the antitumor activity signals in phase I trials. Integration of all these endpoints into trial designs can improve the assessment of therapeutic efficacy during early drug development and guide decisions related to the further advancement of novel molecules into later phases. In this review, we discuss the advantages and pitfalls of different classic efficacy endpoints when evaluated as part of phase I trials in oncology and describe how challenges in assessing the antitumor activity of new drugs can be overcome through the incorporation of novel endpoints that have thus far proven successful in clinical 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.