We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Trends in the Risks and Benefits to Patients With Cancer Participating in Phase 1 Clinical Trials

Thomas G. Roberts, MD, MSocSci; Bernardo H. Goulart, MD; Lee Squitieri; Sarah C. Stallings, PhD; Elkan F. Halpern, PhD; Bruce A. Chabner, MD; G. Scott Gazelle, MD, MPH, PhD; Stan N. Finkelstein, MD; Jeffrey W. Clark, MD
JAMA. 2004;292(17):2130-2140. doi:10.1001/jama.292.17.2130.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

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.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?


Figure 1. Trial Flow Used in Identifying Studies for Detailed Analysis
Graphic Jump Location

FDA indicates US Food and Drug Administration.

Figure 2. Trends in Response and Treatment-Related (Toxic) Death Rates for Studies Initially Submitted to Meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1991-2002
Graphic Jump Location

The contribution of trial-level data to the period average was weighted by the number of enrollees. Error bars indicate SE.



Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

148 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Breast Cancer

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Cancer, Family History