ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2016
Trends in endpoint selection in clinical trials of advanced breast cancer.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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.
- Selection of endpoints in breast cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study of key trial stakeholders.American journal of cancer research · 2022Article
- The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement: Explanation and Elaboration.Annals of internal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe selection of appropriate endpoints is crucial for the evaluation of clinical benefits and approval of novel anticancer agents. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate endpoint selection and the shift in trends in phase II and phase III trials of advanced breast cancer treatment.
methodsAll phase II and phase III trials of advanced breast cancer registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry between October 2000 and September 2012 were included in our study. Two study periods were considered for comparison: October 2000 to September 2007 (cohort A) and October 2007 to September 2012 (cohort B). Information on primary and secondary outcome measures, as well as trial characteristics, was extracted by two independent reviewers.
resultsOf the 398 phase II and 120 phase III trials, the most frequently intended primary endpoint was progression-free survival (phase II: 28.1 %; phase III: 50.0 %). For phase II trials, a shifting trend in primary outcome was observed from cohort A to cohort B: the use of objective response rate, the most frequently intended primary outcome, significantly declined (cohort A: 60.6 %; cohort B: 39.0 %; P < 0.001), while the use of progression-free survival significantly increased (cohort A: 35.9 %; cohort B: 66.1 %; P < 0.001).
conclusionsProgression-free survival is the most frequently intended primary outcome measure in phase II and phase III trials of advanced breast cancer treatment, with a shifting trend observed from objective response rate to progression-free survival in phase II trials.
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.