ReviewCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology2026
The use of pharmacodynamic results for recommended phase II decision making in oncology clinical trials.
Review in Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPharmacodynamic analyses are increasingly important to early-phase oncology drug development, however these analyses use invasive methods to collect patient material. Yet, their role in guiding recommended phase II dose (RP2D) decisions remains unclear. Therefore, this review evaluates how pharmacodynamic analyses assisted the determination of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) in first-in-human cancer trials of small-molecule agents.
methodFirst-in-human dose finding clinical trials of single-agent small-molecule anticancer therapies published between 2022 and 2025 that included pharmacodynamic assessments, were investigated. Clinical trials were evaluated for correlation of pharmacodynamic results at the analyzed doses and their influence in the RP2D decision-making process.
resultsIn total, 535 records were identified and 34 articles, reporting on 34 separate trials, were included. A correlation was found between the pharmacodynamic results and the analyzed dose levels in 92% (n = 31/34). However, only half of the clinical trials (n = 17/34) reported their pharmacodynamic results in the RP2D decision-making process, while 41% (n = 14/34) did not. In most of the clinical trials that did not use their pharmacodynamic results in the RP2D decision-making process, only one pharmacodynamic analysis was performed (n = 9/14, 64%) and they often determined their RP2D solely based on safety and/or tolerability (n = 7/14, 50%). Invasive procedures were often performed without clear utilization of pharmacodynamic data, raising ethical considerations.
conclusionThese findings underscore the need for appropriate sample sizes planning and validated, fit-for-purpose pharmacodynamic assays to ensure meaningful use in dose selection, optimizing patient benefit and trial design.
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.