Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29149450›Full record

Observational studyCancer2018

A prospective, observational cohort study comparing cancer clinical trial availability and enrollment between early adolescents/young adults and children.

Stefanie M Thomas, Jemily Malvar, Henry Tran, Jared Shows, David R Freyer

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Adolescent angst: enrollment on clinical trials.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2018
    Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
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

5 authors.

Stefanie M ThomasChildren's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.ORCID 0000-0003-3225-7129
Jemily MalvarChildren's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Henry TranDepartment of Pathology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Jared ShowsDepartment of Pathology, Long Beach Memorial/Miller Children's Hospital, Long Beach, California.
David R FreyerChildren's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001855 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Thomas A Buchanan, Michele D. Kipke · 2016 to 2026
$81.3M
Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteKL2TR000131 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI BUCHANAN, THOMAS A · 2012 to 2015
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000131NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor enrollment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) (ages 15-39 years) onto cancer clinical trials (CCTs) may contribute to inferior survival gains compared with children. In this study, the authors assessed whether differences in CCT availability would explain lower CCT enrollment for early AYAs (eAYAs) (ages 15-21 years).

methodsThis prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at a single academic children's hospital. For consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer over a 13-month period, it was determined whether an appropriate CCT existed nationally or was available locally and whether enrollment on that CCT occurred. The proportions of eAYAs versus children in each category were compared using the chi-square test. The impact of age and other factors on enrollment status was assessed using logistic regression analysis.

resultsAmong 216 patients, 58 were eAYAs, and 158 were children. There was no difference in the proportion of eAYAs versus children who had an existing CCT (28 of 58 eAYAs [48.3%] vs 85 of 158 children [53.8%]; P = .47) or an available CCT (23 of 58 eAYAs [39.7%] vs 75 of 158 children [47.5%]; P = .31). However, significantly fewer eAYAs were enrolled when a CCT was available (7 of 23 eAYAs [30.4%] vs 50 of 75 children [67.7%]; P = .002). In multivariable analysis, eAYAs were significantly less likely than children to be enrolled in an available CCT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.62).

conclusionsEqual proportions of children and eAYAs had CCTs available, but significantly fewer eAYAs were enrolled. These findings suggest that, for eAYAs, factors other than CCT availability are important enrollment barriers and should be addressed. Cancer 2018;124:983-90. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHospitals, PediatricPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultCancer Care FacilitiesChildHumansNeoplasmsProspective StudiesYoung Adultadolescentclinical oncologyclinical trial as topicyoung adult

Identifiers

PMID29149450
PMCPMC5821554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.