Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18362256›Full record

ArticleArchives of internal medicine2008

Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006.

Benjamin Djulbegovic, Ambuj Kumar, Heloisa P Soares, Iztok Hozo, Gerold Bepler, Mike Clarke, Charles L Bennett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of internal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Cardiovascular Interventions in Patients With Active and Advanced Malignancy: An Updated Review.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Constructing Relative Effect Priors for Research Prioritization and Trial Design: A Meta-epidemiological Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Methodological problems in the method used by IQWiG within early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 'Optimism bias' in contemporary national clinical trial network phase III trials: are we improving?Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Benjamin DjulbegovicH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Dr, MRC, Room 2067H, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. benjamin.djulbegovic@moffitt.org
Ambuj Kumar
Heloisa P Soares
Iztok Hozo
Gerold Bepler
Mike Clarke
Charles L Bennett

Funding

Quality of Research on Treatment Harms in CancerR01CA133594 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI DJULBEGOVIC, BENJAMIN · 2007 to 2008
$539k
Evaluation of the Quality of Clinical TrialsR01NS052956 · NINDS · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR &RES INST · PI DJULBEGOVIC, BENJAMIN · 2005 to 2006
$445k
Equipoise and the research integrity of clinical trialsR01NS044417 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI DJULBEGOVIC, BENJAMIN · 2002 to 2003
$290k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA133594NINDS NIH HHS 1R01NS044417-01NINDS NIH HHS 5 R01 NS052956-02NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS044417NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS052956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evaluation of research output, such as estimation of the proportion of treatment successes, is of ethical, scientific, and public importance but has rarely been evaluated systematically. We assessed how often experimental cancer treatments that undergo testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) result in discovery of successful new interventions.

methodsWe extracted data from all completed (published and unpublished) phase 3 RCTs conducted by the National Cancer Institute cooperative groups since their inception in 1955. Therapeutic successes were determined by (1) assessing the proportion of statistically significant trials favoring new or standard treatments, (2) determining the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior to standard treatments according to the original researchers, and (3) quantitatively synthesizing data for main clinical outcomes (overall and event-free survival).

resultsData from 624 trials (781 randomized comparisons) involving 216 451 patients were analyzed. In all, 30% of trials had statistically significant results, of which new interventions were superior to established treatments in 80% of trials. The original researchers judged that the risk-benefit profile favored new treatments in 41% of comparisons (316 of 766). Hazard ratios for overall and event-free survival, available for 614 comparisons, were 0.95 (99% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98) and 0.90 (99% CI, 0.87- 0.93), respectively, slightly favoring new treatments. Breakthrough interventions were discovered in 15% of trials.

conclusionsApproximately 25% to 50% of new cancer treatments that reach the stage of assessment in RCTs will prove successful. The pattern of successes has become more stable over time. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the ethical principle of equipoise defines limits of discoverability in clinical research and ultimately drives therapeutic advances in clinical medicine.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicFemaleHumansMaleNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)NeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID18362256
PMCPMC2773511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.