ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2011
Using patient-initiated study participation in the development of evidence for personalized cancer therapy.
Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of Patients WithJCO oncology practice · 2020Article
- Adaptive clinical trial designs for simultaneous testing of matched diagnostics and therapeutics.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalized cancer therapy offers the promise of delivering the right treatments to the right patients to improve patient outcomes and quality of life, while reducing exposure to ineffective therapies and the cost of cancer care. Realizing this promise depends in large part on our ability to generate timely and sufficiently detailed information regarding factors that influence treatment response. Generating this evidence through the traditional physician investigator-initiated clinical trial system has proved to be challenging, given poor recruitment rates and low compliance with requests for biospecimen collection. As a result, our current understanding of treatment response is inadequate, particularly for cancer therapies that have been in use for many years. Patient-initiated study participation may offer a new model for evidence generation that capitalizes on strong patient interest in furthering research to inform better and more tailored cancer therapies. In this approach, patients are engaged and recruited directly by the sponsor of an Institutional Review Board-approved study, and patients subsequently drive the participation of their health care providers to facilitate collection of required data and tissue samples. The ultimate goal of these studies is to generate evidence of sufficient quality to inform regulatory decisions (i.e., labeling changes for marketed therapies to reflect populations most likely to respond) and treatment selection. Here, we describe a hypothetical prospective observational study in non-small cell lung cancer that could serve as a model for patient-initiated study participation applied to understand molecular determinants of treatment response. Key elements discussed include study design, patient engagement, and data/biospecimen collection and management principles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22046027What 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.