ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Impact of Dose-Escalation Design on the Safety and Development of Anticancer Drugs in Clinical Trials.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of Dose-Escalation Design on the Safety and Development of Anticancer Drugs in Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The operational characteristics of dose-escalation design in phase I studies have been studied using simulations; however, there is limited analysis regarding its effects on the results of clinical trials. We collected the data of 394 clinical trials involving dose-escalation studies for anticancer drugs submitted to the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency between 2013 and 2022. We used the internal data of the PMDA and published papers and analyzed outcomes such as enrollment and drug development. We identified model-based designs and rule-based designs as the two primary designs. The median number of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)-evaluated patients was higher for model-based designs than for rule-based designs. The proportion of rule-based designs was higher in Japanese trials and that of model-based designs was higher in multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs). The determined recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was consistent with the approved dose in all trials (13/13) involving model-based designs and in 84.0% (21/25) of trials involving rule-based designs, although it was not statistically significant. The proportion of progression to the next study phase was 50.0% (61/122) for rule-based designs and 56.3% (36/64) for model-based designs. Similar trends in these outcomes were observed when MRCTs and Japanese trials were examined separately. Model-based designs might require more DLT-evaluated patients; however, they might have different operational capabilities compared with rule-based designs, such as selecting an RP2D consistent with the approved dose. The results might help in selecting the optimal dose-escalation methods in future phase I 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.