The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Phase I Clinical Trial Design in Cancer Drug Development
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The past decade has seen the publication of a number of new proposals for the design of phase I trials of anticancer agents. The purpose of these proposals has been to address ethical concerns about treating excessive numbers of patients at subtherapeutic doses of a new agent and to increase the overall efficiency of the process while enhancing the precision of the recommended phase II dose. In early 1998, a workshop of phase I investigators was held under the sponsorship of Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute (Wallingford, CT) to review the experience to date with novel phase I methodologies, with a particular focus on their efficiency and safety. This report summarizes the material presented. It was concluded that for phase I trials of antineoplastics (cytotoxics), which begin at 0.1 mouse-equivalent LD10 doses, evidence to date suggests that the historic approach of using a modified Fibonacci escalation and three patients per dose level is not necessary and is seldom used. One patient per dose level and more rapid escalation schemes, both empirically based and statistically based, are commonly used with apparent safety. There remain questions, however: Which of the dose escalation schemes is optimal? Are there alternatives to toxicity as a phase I end point, and will these end points be reliable in defining active doses? Answering these questions in a reasonable time frame will be important if new anticancer agents are not to suffer undue delays in phase I evaluation.
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
Cited by
Von Hoff, D. D., Ramanathan, R. K., Borad, M. J., Laheru, D. A., Smith, L. S., Wood, T. E., Korn, R. L., Desai, N., Trieu, V., Iglesias, J. L., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.36.5742 · Cited by 1,044
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
Development of TGF-β signalling inhibitors for cancer therapy
Yingling, J. M., Blanchard, K. L., & Sawyer, J. S. (2004) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1580 · Cited by 549
Risks and Benefits of Phase 1 Oncology Trials, 1991 through 2002
Horstmann, E., McCabe, M. S., Grochow, L., Yamamoto, S., Rubinstein, L., Budd, T., Shoemaker, D., Emanuel, E. J., & Grady, C. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa042220 · Cited by 441
Tabernero, J., Dirix, L., Schöffski, P., Cervantes, A., Lopez-Martin, J. A., Capdevila, J., van Beijsterveldt, L., Platero, S., Hall, B., Yuan, Z., et al. (2011) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-1101 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Eisenhauer, E. A., O’Dwyer, P. J., Christian, M., & Humphrey, J. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2000-02-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 684-684
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2119597015
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.88
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phase I Clinical Trial Design in Cancer Drug Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.3.684
- The paper
- Eisenhauer, E. A., O’Dwyer, P. J., Christian, M., & Humphrey, J. S. (2000). Phase I Clinical Trial Design in Cancer Drug Development. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.3.684
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.