SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2026
Expansion cohorts in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review of their design, implementation and outcomes.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The urgent need for drug development for cancer patients and the complexity of novel therapies have led to the increasing importance of expansion cohorts (EC) within phase 1 trial design. We conducted a systematic review of oncology phase 1 trials with EC published from 2019 to 2023. The objective was to assess the characteristics, purpose and outcomes of EC. A mixed-effects meta-regression model was conducted to analyse response rates. 479 published phase 1 trials with EC were included (median number of EC patients per trial: 27). The EC objective was stated in 55.7% of studies (76.8% safety, 16.5% dosing, 25.8% pharmacokinetics, 22.1% pharmacodynamics, 77.5% preliminary efficacy). 117 trials (24.4%) included a statistical justification plan. The mean Overall Response Rate (ORR) was 20.2% in solid tumours and 46.8% in haematological malignancies. Among drug classes, Antibody-drug conjugates showed the highest ORR (32.1%). Higher ORR was significantly associated with combination therapies, haematological trials, trials with statistical justification for EC sample size and trials not containing Immunotherapy. EC have evolved to become large dynamic studies assessing both preliminary efficacy and safety. This study highlights the importance of clearly stated EC objectives and sample size justification to enhance the rigour and interpretability of early-phase evidence.
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.