ReviewCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2005
Prospective clinical trials of biotherapies in solid tumors: a 5-year survey.
Review in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of anticancer drug combinations: a meta-analysis of randomized trials with a focus on immunotherapeutics and gene-targeted compounds.Oncoimmunology · 2020Pooled it
- Quality of reporting in oncology phase II trials: A 5-year assessment through systematic review.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Biotherapies in Solid Tumors: Are Negative Results Still of Low Priority for Publication?Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review the content and quality of prospective clinical trials of biotherapies in solid tumors.
methodsData were collected from the literature between 1990 and 2002 on general study characteristics, patient and disease factors, study methodology, and factors related to completeness of reporting. Quality of phase II studies was evaluated by an ad hoc questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, contingency tables, and the chi-square test were applied.
resultsA total of 334 studies were selected, of which about three quarters were multicenter, with 42.5% reporting phase I, 42.2% phase II or I/II, and 11.9% phase III or II/III studies. Only 13.7% were randomized, and a study design emphasizing statistical analysis was lacking in as many as one third. The assessment of biological endpoints was stated as the primary or secondary goal in half of these studies. Melanoma (17.1%), renal carcinoma (11.1%), gastrointestinal neoplasms (11.1%), and lymphomas (6.3%) were the most studied diseases. Immunotherapies accounted for 182 studies; the remaining 152 reported other biotherapies. Patients with (1) advanced disease (P = 0.003), (2) heavily pretreated neoplasms (P < 0.0001), (3) poor performance status (PS < 2) (P < 0.0001), were more frequently enrolled in studies of biotherapy. Biotherapies were less frequently evaluated in phase III studies (7/152) compared with immunotherapies (33/182) (P < 0.0001). A statistical study design was more frequently identified in biotherapy trials (127/152) compared with immunotherapy trials (98/182) (P < 0.0001). Biological endpoints were less frequently evaluated in phase III studies in both biotherapies (100% no vs 0% yes) and immunotherapies (81.8% no vs 18.2% yes) (P = 0.01, for biotherapies; P < 0.0001, for immunotherapies). Phase I immunotherapy studies more frequently applied biological or molecular criteria for patient selection (41.1%) than phase II (29.3%) and III (3.1%) studies (P < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe very wide diversity in modalities of conducting and reporting clinical trials of biotherapies of solid tumors and the presence of some methodological pitfalls suggest that the methodological standards for conducting and publishing clinical trials in biotherapies should be improved to enhance the reliability of the body of published data.
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.