Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41036631›Full record

ReviewClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2025

FDA-AACR Strategies for Optimizing Dosages for Oncology Drug Products: Early-Phase Trials Using Innovative Trial Designs and Biomarkers.

Olanrewaju O Okusanya, Gabriela I Patilea-Vrana, Anthony Sireci, Alexia Iasonos, Brad A Davidson, Jiang Liu, Stacy S Shord, Patricia M LoRusso, Timothy A Yap

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A modular framework for antibody-drug conjugate biomarkers.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. FDA-AACR Strategies for Optimizing Dosages for Oncology Drug Products: Selecting Optimized Dosages for Registrational Trials.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Review
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

9 authors.

Olanrewaju O OkusanyaU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-4134-7882
Gabriela I Patilea-VranaBeiGene USA, Inc., San Mateo, California.ORCID 0000-0002-5795-0547
Anthony SireciEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.ORCID 0009-0006-7360-5651
Alexia IasonosMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0003-0471-8477
Brad A DavidsonAmerican Association for Cancer Research, Washington, District of Columbia.ORCID 0000-0002-5850-117X
Jiang LiuU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-5755-3904
Stacy S ShordU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0009-0000-9497-1171
Patricia M LoRussoYale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut.ORCID 0000-0001-7144-036X
Timothy A YapUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-2154-3309

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Intramural FDA HHS FD999999NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dosage selection for oncology drugs has traditionally relied on initial dose-finding trials to determine an MTD, which is then further evaluated in approval-supporting registrational trials. Although this approach may have established optimized dosages for cytotoxic chemotherapeutics, many modern oncology drugs developed through this approach have been poorly optimized, requiring additional dosage optimization efforts in the postmarket setting. Recent initiatives of the FDA outline the unsustainability of this approach, instead recommending the identification of a potentially optimized dosage at earlier stages through a direct comparison of multiple dosages before marketing application submission. The selection of dosages for further investigation outside of the MTD requires fit-for-purpose techniques that address the specific promises and concerns of the drug under investigation. Although such strategies have been developed, they are currently rarely applied in favor of the MTD paradigm. Innovative trial elements, including various integral, integrated, and exploratory biomarkers as well as backfill and randomized dose-expansion cohorts, represent potential avenues to create and leverage additional data and thereby make more informed dosing decisions. Additionally, modeling approaches such as clinical utility index can integrate these disparate datatypes into a single metric, facilitating more quantitative selection. This article, the second in a series of three articles addressing different stages of dose optimization, outlines best practices and areas for further development with regard to innovative techniques for the selection of dosages for further evaluation prior to final dosage selection for registrational trials in oncology.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorClinical Trials as TopicNeoplasmsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug ApprovalHumansMaximum Tolerated DoseResearch DesignUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID41036631
PMCPMC12614637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.