Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40049448›Full record

ReviewAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2025

Efficacy assessment in phase I clinical trials: endpoints and challenges.

M A Gouda, P A Ballesteros, I Garrido-Laguna, J Rodon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Driving emerging technology to clinical impact.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2026
    Review
  2. 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 · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M A GoudaDepartment of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
P A BallesterosDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
I Garrido-LagunaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, USA.
J RodonDepartment of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. Electronic address: jrodon@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Center for Clinical and Translational SciencesUM1TR004906 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI Maria Eulalia Fernandez, LORNA H. MCNEILL · 2024 to 2026
$16.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004906NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

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

Antineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicEndpoint DeterminationNeoplasmsHumansProgression-Free SurvivalResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic Agentsclinical trialsefficacyphase I

Identifiers

PMID40049448
PMCPMC13634258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.