Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20133383›Full record

ReviewAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2010

Investigator-initiated trials of targeted oncology agents: why independent research is at risk?

L Bergmann, B Berns, A G Dalgleish, M von Euler, T T Hecht, G L Lappin, N Reed, S Palmeri, J Smyth, S Embacher-Aichorn and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Interventional Oncology Service Development.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2017
    Review
  6. Cancer concepts and principles: primer for the interventional oncologist-part I.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

L BergmannCancer Center Rhein-Main, Medical Clinic II, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
B BernsResearch and Development, Ortho Biotech Oncology, High Wycombe.
A G DalgleishDivision of Oncology, St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London, London.
M von EulerOncology Clinical Development, Roche, Welwyn Garden City, UK.
T T HechtNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda.
G L LappinScience and Technology, Xceleron, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA.
N ReedClinical Oncology, Beatson Oncology Centre, Glasgow, UK.
S PalmeriMedical Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
J SmythMedical Oncology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
S Embacher-AichornDepartment of Internal Medicine/Medical Oncology, Medizinische Universität, Innsbruck, Austria.
H ZwierzinaDepartment of Internal Medicine/Medical Oncology, Medizinische Universität, Innsbruck, Austria. Electronic address: Heinz.Zwierzina@i-med.ac.at.
Biotherapy Development Association
Innsbruck Medical University · ATBeatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre · GBGoethe University Frankfurt · DENational Institutes of Health · USRoche (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of London · GBUniversity of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug development traditionally has relied upon the complementary contributions of clinicians and scientists at academic institutions and at pharmaceutical companies. Greater regulatory burdens, increased bureaucratic requirements, restricted reimbursement, and spiralling research and development costs are exerting pressure on the drug development pipeline. The result is a de-emphasis of exploratory research, particularly independent academic research, despite its proven value in identifying new drug targets and developing innovative cancer therapies.

designAn expert panel assembled by the Biotherapy Development Association-a nonprofit international forum for academic and industry researchers, patients, and government regulatory and postregulatory agencies-examined the growing schism between academia and industry and identified several causes of declining academic research.

resultsThe authors propose solutions to sustain investigator-initiated research and provide a new model whereby expert organisations provide a forum for academia and industry to plan studies within a regulatory framework to support licensure/authorisation and reimbursement for new molecularly targeted agents and biomarkers.

conclusionsInvestigator-initiated trials have led to the discovery and development of innovative, safe, and effective cancer treatments. To ensure that such research continues, action will be required on the parts of legislative and regulatory bodies, industry, universities, patient advocacy organisations, and preclinical and clinical academic scientists.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelAntineoplastic AgentsHumansNeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID20133383
PMCPMC8890484
OpenAlexW2104961194

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.