ArticleThoracic cancer2016
Systematic analysis of design and stratification for phase III trials in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2016. 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.
- Exploratory composite endpoint demonstrates benefit of trilaciclib across multiple clinically meaningful components of myeloprotection in patients with small cell lung cancer.International journal of cancer · 2021Trial
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent study reviewed phase III trials of first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) conducted from 1981 to 2010, and provided trends in the study outcome. However, such trials have never been analyzed in detail for design and stratification factors.
methodsPhase III studies of systemic treatment for first-line advanced or metastatic NSCLC published in English literature between 1981 and 2010 were identified. Characteristics, including sample size, number of trials, region, rate of meeting accrual goal, primary endpoint, type of phase III, interim analysis, allocation method, and stratification factors, were determined for each decade.
resultsA total of 162 studies met the criteria. The number of studies and sample size increased over the three decades. The primary endpoint was reported more frequently in recent decades, and non-overall survival endpoints were chosen in European and Asian studies. Interim analysis was conducted more commonly during the 2000s. Allocation method was rarely reported throughout the three decades. The number of stratification factors increased significantly from one in 1980s to three in 2000s. Performance status, stage, and institution were most frequently selected, and at least one of the three factors was used in most of the studies in the 2000s. However, there are many other stratification factors that were used infrequently.
conclusionsDespite Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, allocation method has rarely been reported. The choice of stratification factor remains inconsistent across studies.
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.