Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (927 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The highest dose of a biologically active agent given during a chronic study that will not reduce longevity from effects other than carcinogenicity. (from Lewis Dictionary of Toxicology, 1st ed)
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Dose, Maximum Tolerated; Doses, Maximum Tolerated; Maximum Tolerated Doses; Tolerated Dose, Maximum; Tolerated Doses, Maximum; Maximal Tolerated Dose; Dose, Maximal Tolerated; Doses, Maximal Tolerated.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Toxicity Tests; Toxicological Phenomena
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 6,818 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Maximum Tolerated Dose” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 1,190 of them (17.5%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 3,045 records.
Reviews account for 434 records (6.4%) and meta-analyses for 24. Randomized controlled trials number 506 (7.4%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 2,687 |
| 2010-2019 | 3,045 |
| 2020 onward | 1,190 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 434 | 6.4% |
| Meta-analyses | 24 | 0.4% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 506 | 7.4% |
Method: PubMed query "Maximum Tolerated Dose"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in pharmacology
Drug evidence builds in layers: laboratory pharmacology describes how a compound acts, pharmacokinetic studies describe how the body handles it, and randomized trials test whether it helps and what harms it causes. Post-marketing surveillance and observational studies reveal rarer adverse effects but cannot prove causation. This page is educational and is not a recommendation to start, stop or change any medicine; decisions about treatment belong with a qualified clinician.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of NK105, a paclitaxel-incorporating micellar nanoparticle formulation [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- This phase I study was designed to examine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the recommended dose (RD) for phase II, and the pharmacokinetics of NK105, a new polymeric micelle carrier system for paclitaxel (PTX).
- Closing excerpt
- The results of this phase I study warrant further clinical evaluation.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (244 words)
This phase I study was designed to examine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the recommended dose (RD) for phase II, and the pharmacokinetics of NK105, a new polymeric micelle carrier system for paclitaxel (PTX). NK105 was administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks, without antiallergic premedication. The starting dose was 10 mg m(-2), and the dose was escalated according to the accelerated titration method. Nineteen patients were recruited. The tumour types treated included pancreatic (n=11), bile duct (n=5), gastric (n=2), and colonic (n=1) cancers. Neutropenia was the most common haematological toxicity. A grade 3 fever developed in one patient given 180 mg m(-2). No other grades 3 or 4 nonhaematological toxicities, including neuropathy, was observed during the entire study period. DLTs occurred in two patients given 180 mg m(-2) (grade 4 neutropenia lasting for more than 5 days). Thus, this dose was designated as the MTD. Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions developed in only one patient given 180 mg m(-2). A partial response was observed in one patient with pancreatic cancer. The maximum concentration (C(max)) and area under the concentration (AUC) of NK105 were dose dependent. The plasma AUC of NK105 at 150 mg m(-2) was approximately 15-fold higher than that of the conventional PTX formulation. NK105 was well tolerated, and the RD for the phase II study was determined to be 150 mg m(-2) every 3 weeks. The results of this phase I study warrant further clinical evaluation.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 17595665 · DOI · PMC2360299
A systematic investigation of the maximum tolerated dose of cytotoxic chemotherapy with and without supportive care in mice [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundCytotoxic chemotherapeutics form the cornerstone of systemic treatment of many cancers.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionThese data form a resource for future studies using chemotherapy in mice, increasing comparability between studies, reducing the number of mice needed for dose optimisation experiments and potentially improving translation to the clinic.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (190 words)
BackgroundCytotoxic chemotherapeutics form the cornerstone of systemic treatment of many cancers. Patients are dosed at maximum tolerated dose (MTD), which is carefully determined in phase I studies. In contrast, in murine studies, dosages are often based on customary practice or small pilot studies, which often are not well documented. Consequently, research groups need to replicate experiments, resulting in an excess use of animals and highly variable dosages across the literature. In addition, while patients often receive supportive treatments in order to allow dose escalation, mice do not. These issues could affect experimental results and hence clinical translation.MethodsTo address this, we determined the single-dose MTD in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice for a range of chemotherapeutics covering the canonical classes, with clinical score and weight as endpoints.ResultsWe found that there was some variation in MTDs between strains and the tolerability of repeated cycles of chemotherapy at MTD was drug-dependent. We also demonstrate that dexamethasone reduces chemotherapy-induced weight loss in mice.ConclusionThese data form a resource for future studies using chemotherapy in mice, increasing comparability between studies, reducing the number of mice needed for dose optimisation experiments and potentially improving translation to the clinic.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29037232 · DOI · PMC5644108
A phase I/II study of gemcitabine and fractionated cisplatin in an outpatient setting using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced and metastatic bladder cancer [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- A randomised phase III trial of MVAC (methotrexate, vincristine, doxorubicin, cisplatin) vs gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) (G 1000 mg m(-2) days 1, 8, and 15 plus C 70 mg m(-2) day 2, q 4 wks) indicated GC had similar efficacy and lower toxicity (JCO 2000).
- Closing excerpt
- G plus C every 3 weeks is active and well tolerated in an outpatient setting, even in patients receiving prior platinum-based regimens and with poor renal reserve.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (285 words)
A randomised phase III trial of MVAC (methotrexate, vincristine, doxorubicin, cisplatin) vs gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) (G 1000 mg m(-2) days 1, 8, and 15 plus C 70 mg m(-2) day 2, q 4 wks) indicated GC had similar efficacy and lower toxicity (JCO 2000). Significant haematologic toxicities in the GC arm occurred on day 15, necessitating dose adjustments in 37% of cycles. We conducted a phase I/II dose escalation trial using GC on a 21-day cycle, with G and C split between days 1 and 8. The objective of the study to define maximum-tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), objective response rate, and overall survival. In all, 32 patients with locally advanced, relapsed, or metastatic disease received: dose level 1, G/C 1000/35; level 2, 1100/35; level 3, 1200/35; level 4, 1200/45 mg m(-2) (G and C given on days 1 and 8 every 3 wks). A total of 19 patients had glomerular filtration rate <60 ml min(-1) and 19 patients had metastatic disease. Dose-limiting toxicity was haematologic (grade 4 thrombocytopenia) at dose level 2. Of 151 cycles, at day 15, platelets were <100 in 61 cycles; neutrophils <0.5, platelets <50 in 26 cycles. Only seven cycles were deferred due to haematological toxicity; four for renal toxicity (chemotherapy instituted posthydration). Overall response rate was 65.5% on an intention-to-treat analysis (75% [21/28] for assessable patients), with four complete responses (12.5%) and 17 partial responses (53%). After the median follow-up of 17.2 months (range 13.1-32.4 months), 12 patients remain alive. The overall median survival was 16 months (range 10.1-26.6 months). G plus C every 3 weeks is active and well tolerated in an outpatient setting, even in patients receiving prior platinum-based regimens and with poor renal reserve.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 15292922 · DOI · PMC2409873
Patient Retreat in Dose Escalation for Phase I Clinical Trials With Rare Diseases [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Phase I clinical trials aim to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), a task that becomes challenging in rare disease due to limited patient recruitment.
- Closing excerpt
- Together, PRIDE and PRIDE-FA provide a robust and efficient framework for phase I clinical trials with rare diseases.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (208 words)
Phase I clinical trials aim to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), a task that becomes challenging in rare disease due to limited patient recruitment. Traditional dose-finding designs, which assign one dose per patient, require a sufficient sample size that may be infeasible for rare disease trials. To address these limitations, we propose the patient retreat in dose escalation (PRIDE) scheme, which integrates intra-patient dose escalation and considers intra-patient correlations by incorporating random effects into a Bayesian hierarchical framework. We further introduce PRIDE-FA (flexible allocation), an extension of PRIDE with a flexible allocation strategy. By allowing retreated patients to be assigned to any dose level based on trial needs, PRIDE-FA improves resource efficiency, leading to greater reductions in required sample size and trial duration. This paper incorporates random effects into established dose-finding designs, including the calibration-free odds (CFO) design, the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design, and the continual reassessment method (CRM) to account for intra-patient correlations when each patient may receive multiple doses. Simulation studies demonstrate that PRIDE and PRIDE-FA significantly improve the accuracy of MTD selection, reduce required sample size, and shorten trial duration compared to existing dose-finding methods. Together, PRIDE and PRIDE-FA provide a robust and efficient framework for phase I clinical trials with rare diseases.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41640346 · DOI · PMC12873649
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Irinotecan: mechanisms of tumor resistance and novel strategies for modulating its activity [5]
- Research article Platinum-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: current status [6]
- Research article An FDA oncology analysis of CD3 bispecific constructs and first-in-human dose selection [7]
- Research article Dose selection in phase I studies: why we should always go for the top [8]
- Research article Challenges and Opportunities in Dose Finding in Oncology and Immuno-oncology [9]
- Research article Embracing model-based designs for dose-finding trials [10]
References
- Hamaguchi T, Kato K, Yasui H, Morizane C, Ikeda M, Ueno H, et al.. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of NK105, a paclitaxel-incorporating micellar nanoparticle formulation. . 2007. PMID 17595665 · DOI · PMC2360299
- Aston WJ, Hope DE, Nowak AK, Robinson BW, Lake RA, Lesterhuis WJ. A systematic investigation of the maximum tolerated dose of cytotoxic chemotherapy with and without supportive care in mice. . 2017. PMID 29037232 · DOI · PMC5644108
- Hussain SA, Stocken DD, Riley P, Palmer DH, Peake DR, Geh JI, et al.. A phase I/II study of gemcitabine and fractionated cisplatin in an outpatient setting using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. . 2004. PMID 15292922 · DOI · PMC2409873
- Fang J, Yin G. Patient Retreat in Dose Escalation for Phase I Clinical Trials With Rare Diseases. . 2026. PMID 41640346 · DOI · PMC12873649
- Xu Y, Villalona-Calero MA. Irinotecan: mechanisms of tumor resistance and novel strategies for modulating its activity. Ann Oncol. 2002. PMID 12453851 · DOI
- Decatris MP, Sundar S, O'Byrne KJ. Platinum-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: current status. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004. PMID 14766126 · DOI
- Saber H, Del Valle P, Ricks TK, Leighton JK. An FDA oncology analysis of CD3 bispecific constructs and first-in-human dose selection. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017. PMID 28887049 · DOI
- Sleijfer S, Wiemer E. Dose selection in phase I studies: why we should always go for the top. J Clin Oncol. 2008. PMID 18332465 · DOI
- Ji Y, Jin JY, Hyman DM, Kim G, Suri A. Challenges and Opportunities in Dose Finding in Oncology and Immuno-oncology. Clin Transl Sci. 2018. PMID 29392871 · DOI · PMC6039198
- Love SB, Brown S, Weir CJ, Harbron C, Yap C, Gaschler-Markefski B, et al.. Embracing model-based designs for dose-finding trials. Br J Cancer. 2017. PMID 28664918 · DOI · PMC5537496
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.