ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2026
Strategic risk assessment in oncology: Utilizing single-agent activity to boost combination therapy approvals.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study examines whether single-agent activity in early clinical phases correlates with the approval likelihood of combination therapies in oncology. Using the Intelligencia AI database, we investigated the impact of monotherapy efficacy on the success rates of combination therapies. Methods: The analysis included combinational therapies across various solid tumor types, assessing the approval rates and the presence of monotherapy efficacy with cut-off date September 12, 2024, and an assessment of 3896 programs. We analyzed historical clinical trial data focusing on Objective Response Rate (ORR) as a metric of single-agent activity (SAA). Results: Approval rate for combination programs across all indications and phases was 4.2 %. Programs that included approved monotherapy drugs had an approval rate of 6.1 %, whereas those without approved monotherapy drugs had a lower approval rate of 2.7 %. However, the historical approval rate for combination programs with failed monotherapy drug with more than 20 % objective response rate was 5.8 %. Furthermore, approved combinations derived from monotherapy-failed pipelines showed diverse ORR thresholds, with specific trends observed across different cancer types. Conclusions: The likelihood of approval for combination therapies is higher when combined with monotherapy drugs that have previously shown single agent activity. This finding is consistent with other research on historical approval rates and the common consensus within oncology drug development. Here we suggest that by leveraging monotherapy drug activity there can be an enhanced prioritization of anti-cancer agents repurposed for combination therapies, which would have otherwise been shelved based on their single agent failure.
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.