Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28314841›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2017

Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development.

Arthur E Frankel, Keith T Flaherty, George J Weiner, Robert Chen, Nilofer S Azad, Michael J Pishvaian, John A Thompson, Matthew H Taylor, Daruka Mahadevan, A Craig Lockhart and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Evaluation of Clinical Pharmacy Services for Phase 1 Clinical Trials.Journal of hematology oncology pharmacy · 2022
    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

18 authors.

Arthur E FrankelUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA arthur.frankel@utsouthwestern.edu.
Keith T FlahertyHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
George J WeinerHolden Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Robert ChenCity of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, USA.
Nilofer S AzadThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michael J PishvaianGeorgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA.
John A ThompsonFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Matthew H TaylorOregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Daruka MahadevanUniversity of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
A Craig LockhartAlvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Ulka N VaishampayanKarmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Jordan D BerlinVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
David C SmithUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
John SarantopoulosInstitute for Drug Development at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Matthew RieseMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Mansoor N SalehComprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Chul AhnUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Eugene P FrenkelUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Douglas Robert Spitz · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersClinical Trials as TopicHumansNeoplasmsProgram DevelopmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28314841
PMCPMC5388388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.