ArticleESMO open2017
Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules.
Article in ESMO open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival benefit of oral systemic monotherapy in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.The oncologist · 2026Pooled it
- A Comparison of Additional Benefit Assessment Methods for Time-to-Event Endpoints Using Hazard Ratio Point Estimates or Confidence Interval Limits by Means of a Simulation Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Critical Appraisal of Guideline Recommendations on Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review.JAMA oncology · 2024Review
- Systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer: learning from the past to build the future.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022Review
- An appraisal of FDA approvals for adult solid tumours in 2017-2021: has the eagle landed?Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current status and future directions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- EHA evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies.ESMO open · 2020Article
- How I treat cancer special issue.ESMO open · 2019Article
- Assessing the clinical benefit from medical therapies in CNS malignancies: Refining the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and the ASCO Value Framework.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. Grading is guided by a dual rule comparing the relative benefit (RB) and the absolute benefit (AB) achieved by the therapy to prespecified threshold values. The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 dual rule evaluates the RB of an experimental treatment based on the lower limit of the 95%CI (LL95%CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) along with an AB threshold. This dual rule addresses two goals: inclusiveness: not unfairly penalising experimental treatments from trials designed with adequate power targeting clinically meaningful relative benefit; and discernment: penalising trials designed to detect a small inconsequential benefit.
methodsBased on 50 000 simulations of plausible trial scenarios, the sensitivity and specificity of the LL95%CI rule and the ESMO-MCBS dual rule, the robustness of their characteristics for reasonable power and range of targeted and true HRs, are examined. The per cent acceptance of maximal preliminary grade is compared with other dual rules based on point estimate (PE) thresholds for RB.
resultsFor particularly small or particularly large studies, the observed benefit needs to be relatively big for the ESMO-MCBS dual rule to be satisfied and the maximal grade awarded. Compared with approaches that evaluate RB using the PE thresholds, simulations demonstrate that the MCBS approach better exhibits the desired behaviour achieving the goals of both inclusiveness and discernment.
conclusionsRB assessment using the LL95%CI for HR rather than a PE threshold has two advantages: it diminishes the probability of excluding big benefit positive studies from achieving due credit and, when combined with the AB assessment, it increases the probability of downgrading a trial with a statistically significant but clinically insignificant observed benefit.
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.