ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
A narrative review of adaptive Phase I/II clinical trial designs for drug combinations in oncology.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adaptive Phase I/II designs can jointly use toxicity and efficacy information to guide dose allocation and regimen selection. These designs are particularly relevant for oncology drug-combination trials, where the optimal regimen may not coincide with the maximum tolerated dose. Methods: We conducted a structured narrative review of adaptive Phase I/II designs for oncology drug combinations that use both toxicity and efficacy information for adaptive allocation or final regimen selection. PubMed was searched through April 16, 2026 using terms related to Phase I/II, seamless design, drug combinations, dose-finding and efficacy, optimal biological dose, dual-agent, efficacy-toxicity trade-off, utility-based dose-finding, and adaptive randomization. Google Scholar and reference lists were used for supplementary citation chasing, and ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for illustrative real-trial applications. Results: Adaptive Phase I/II designs for drug combinations were identified across model-based, model-assisted, utility-based, and response-adaptive randomization frameworks for both discrete and continuous dose settings. Across designs, the main trade-offs involved assumptions on monotonicity and ordering, the ability to handle delayed outcomes, transparency of decision rules, computational burden, and software availability. Our targeted search identified few published real-world implementations, and software directly tailored to seamless Phase I/II combination trials remained limited. Conclusions: Adaptive Phase I/II designs for drug combinations are methodologically well developed but remain difficult to implement routinely. Broader use will require clearer design-selection guidance, accessible software, robust delayed-outcome extensions, and protocol templates that communicate operating characteristics to clinical and regulatory stakeholders.
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.