The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trends in the Risks and Benefits to Patients With Cancer Participating in Phase 1 Clinical Trials
Abstract
CONTEXT: In the past, cancer patients entering phase 1 studies confronted the prospects of high risk and unlikely benefit. Over the last decade, cancer drugs under development have become more targeted, and the clinical research environment has become more scrutinized. The impact of these changes on the risks and benefits to patients who participate in phase 1 cancer trials is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine trends in the rates of treatment-related (toxic) death, objective response, and serious toxicity and to identify factors associated with these outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched abstracts and journal articles reporting the results of phase 1 cancer treatment trials originally submitted to annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) from 1991 through 2002. STUDY SELECTION: We focused on published single-agent trials that enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors and excluded studies testing agents already approved by the US Food and Drug Administration at the time of the ASCO presentation. DATA EXTRACTION: Multiple observers independently extracted information on trial design, location, sponsorship, types of tumors treated, drug class, route of administration, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: The overall toxic death rate for 213 studies (involving 6474 cancer patients) published in peer-reviewed journals was 0.54%, while the overall objective response rate was 3.8%. Toxic death rates decreased over the study period, from 1.1% over the first 4 years of the study (1991-1994) to 0.06% over the most recent 4-year period (1999-2002) (P<.01). Response rates also decreased but by proportionally much less. After adjusting for characteristics of the experimental trials and the investigational agents, the odds of a patient dying from an experimental treatment while participating in a trial submitted during the most recent 4-year period were less than one tenth those of a patient participating in a trial submitted during the first 4-year period (odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.67; P = .009). In comparison, the adjusted odds of a patient experiencing an objective response over the same time periods decreased by approximately half (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.66; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The level of risk experienced by cancer patients who participate in phase 1 treatment trials appears to have improved over the 12-year period from 1991 through 2002. Because toxic death rates have decreased more quickly than have objective response rates, the ratio of risk to benefit may have also improved. These changes relate in part to the targeted and less-toxic nature of newer cancer drugs and are coincident with the increased attention that has been paid to the safety of clinical research over the time period we analyzed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Cited by
Dose Escalation Methods in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials
Le Tourneau, C., Lee, J. J., & Siu, L. L. (2009) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djp079 · Cited by 867
What's wrong with our cancer models?
Kamb, A. (2005) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1635 · Cited by 335
Therapeutic cancer vaccines: Are we there yet?
Klebanoff, C. A., Acquavella, N., Yu, Z., & Restifo, N. P. (2011) · Immunological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1600-065x.2010.00979.x · Cited by 271
Translation of Innovative Designs Into Phase I Trials
Rogatko, A., Schoeneck, D., Jonas, W., Tighiouart, M., Khuri, F. R., & Porter, A. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2007.12.1012 · Cited by 217
The Structure of Clinical Translation: Efficiency, Information, and Ethics
Kimmelman, J., & London, A. J. (2015) · Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1002/hast.433 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- Roberts, T. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-11-03
- Volume
- 292
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 2130
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2148666312
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.