Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23942936›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology practice2013

Screening intervention to identify eligible patients and improve accrual to phase II-IV oncology clinical trials.

Leo Chen, Janice Grant, Winson Y Cheung, Hagen F Kennecke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Impact of an Online Training Program About Cancer Clinical Trials on Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs, and Behavior.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leo ChenUniversity of British Columbia; and British Columbia Cancer Agency-Vancouver Center, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Janice Grant
Winson Y Cheung
Hagen F Kennecke

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLow enrolment rates in clinical trials present a barrier to the development of novel cancer therapies. Currently, only 3% of patients with cancer participate, and many studies fail to achieve necessary enrolment. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a screening intervention to identify potentially eligible patients (PEPs) would increase accrual rates. PATIENTS AND

methodsOver a 4-month intervention period, PEPs for 21 phase II-IV breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology, and lung cancer trials were identified by a screening coordinator. This individual reviewed the electronic medical records of patients attending outpatient clinics and flagged PEPs for 10 medical oncologists at the BC Cancer Agency. Patients who were already documented to be trial eligible by physicians were not flagged. Oncologists were surveyed regarding the helpfulness and accuracy of the intervention.

resultsDuring the intervention period, 73 patients were enrolled, compared with 61 patients enrolled in the 4 months prior and 51 patients in the 4 months after. A total of 2,098 charts were reviewed, and 120 PEPs were identified during the intervention period, resulting in 19 PEPs who enrolled and four PEPs who declined a clinical trial. Relative accrual rates adjusted for oncologist appointments were 0.85 (P = .15) before and 0.70 (P < .005) after, relative to the intervention period. Oncologist-returned surveys indicated that 67% of flags were helpful, and 70% were accurate.

conclusionsIn this study, manually screening patient records increased enrolment to specific clinical trials. A screening intervention process, involving a dedicated screening coordinator, should be considered to improve clinical trial accrual.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase II as TopicClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicClinical Trials, Phase IV as TopicPatient SelectionHumansNeoplasmsPhysiciansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID23942936
PMCPMC3710186

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.