ReviewWorld journal of urology2014
The ineligible patient: how to treat patients not included in clinical studies.
Review in World journal of urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of everolimus treatment in a hemodialysis patient with metastatic atypical bronchial carcinoid: case report and literature review.BMC cancer · 2018Review
- The relationship between eligibility criteria and adverse events in randomized controlled trials of hematologic malignancies.Leukemia · 2017Article
- Pazopanib in Patients with Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Seeking the Right Patient.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTargeted therapies are currently the standard of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Five VEGF pathway inhibitors (sorafenib, sunitinib, bevacizumab in combination with interferon-alpha, pazopanib, and axitinib) and two mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and temsirolimus) are now FDA approved for mRCC based on results from phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, several subgroups of patients are excluded from enrollment due to strict eligibility criteria. The toxicity and efficacy of targeted therapies in these populations are unknown.
methodsPubMed was searched for citations of the pivotal phase III RCTs leading to FDA approval. These publications were cross-referenced with their associated entries on www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and both were abstracted for eligibility criteria for patient enrollment. Based on this data, PubMed was searched for both prospective and retrospective studies evaluating toxicity and efficacy of targeted therapies for mRCC in these ineligible patient subgroups.
resultsWe reviewed published toxicity and efficacy data in several ineligible patient subgroups, including patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, poor performance status, poor renal function, CNS metastases, significant cardiac comorbidities, and prior systemic therapy.
conclusionsTargeted therapies appear to be safe in most ineligible patient populations, including patients with poor renal function. However, patients with preexisting cardiac comorbidities are at greater risk of developing cardiac toxicity on sunitinib. Targeted therapies appear to have some efficacy in maintaining stable disease in these subgroups, but are limited to rare partial responses. Prospective cohort studies are needed to accurately assess the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in ineligible patient subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23436165What 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.