ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Comparison of baseline patient characteristics in phase 1 and phase 2/3 clinical trials for anticancer treatments.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCharacteristics of patients significantly differ between registrational clinical trials (CTs) and Italian real-world practice, with older median age, higher elderly (≥ 65) rate and worse performance status (PS) in the latter, without imbalance in female rate. We compared the same characteristics between registrational phase 2/3 and phase 1 CTs.
methodsData on age, sex and PS were extracted from European Public Assessment Reports of European Medicines Agency. Weighted means and standard deviations were calculated in both groups and differences were described overall, by cancer type and drug class.
resultsWe collected 103 phase 2/3 and 111 phase 1 CTs, supporting 97 therapeutic indications. Age and sex were compared in 59 indications. Mean median age (SD) was 60.7 (5.1) years in phase 2/3 and 59.7 (5.6) years in phase 1 (p = 0.051). Age difference was greater for skin and breast cancer; no heterogeneity emerged among drug classes. Mean female rate was not statistically significantly lower in phase 2/3 than phase 1 CTs overall, (mean difference - 4.9%, p = 0.999); difference was greater for skin and upper-gastrointestinal cancers and for cytotoxic agents. Mean PS > 1 rate, compared in 47 indications, was similar in phase 2/3 [2.3% (4.7)] and phase 1 [1.8% (3.5)] (p = 0.374); difference was greater for colorectal cancer and cytotoxic agents.
conclusionsWe found no statistically significant difference in age, sex and PS between patients in phase 2/3 and corresponding phase 1 CTs for anticancer treatments. Therefore, patient selection in phase 1 trials appears crucial, considering its potential impact in later development phases.
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.