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.
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.
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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk-Benefit of Phase 2 Monotherapy Trials in Adult Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of Event Rate and Effect Size Estimation in Major Cardiovascular Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2019Pooled it
- Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2011Pooled it
- Trial
- Cardiovascular Interventions in Patients With Active and Advanced Malignancy: An Updated Review.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2024Review
- Design and synthesis of new spirooxindole candidates and their selenium nanoparticles as potential dual Topo I/II inhibitors, DNA intercalators, and apoptotic inducers.Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2023Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Identification of threshold for large (dramatic) effects that would obviate randomized trials is not possible.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Effects of financial incentives on volunteering for clinical trials: A randomized vignette experiment.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Article
- Cancer Clinical Trial Participation at the 1-Year Anniversary of the Outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- An open-source, expert-designed decision tree application to support accurate diagnosis of myeloid malignancies.EJHaem · 2021Article
- Association of Patient Demographic Characteristics and Insurance Status With Survival in Cancer Randomized Clinical Trials With Positive Findings.JAMA network open · 2020Observational
- Influence of Modeling Choices on Value of Information Analysis: An Empirical Analysis from a Real-World Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
- Article
- Adaptive designs in clinical trials in critically ill patients: principles, advantages and pitfalls.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Design analysis indicates Potential overestimation of treatment effects in randomized controlled trials supporting Food and Drug Administration cancer drug approvals.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- '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 · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.