Trial reportMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2018
Generalizability of clinical trials of advanced melanoma in the real-world, population-based setting.
Trial report in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review.Clinical and translational science · 2020Pooled it
- Observational
- Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Understanding Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes among Metastatic Melanoma Patients in Alberta, Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Immunotherapy-Based Combinations as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Patients Who Do Not Meet Trial Eligibility Criteria.Targeted oncology · 2022Article
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
Results from novel therapeutics trials are not always generalizable to real-world patients. We aimed to determine the pattern in which trial findings are applied in a population-based setting of melanoma patients and consequent treatment outcomes. Patients with unresectable disease during 2011-2014 and referred to cancer centers in a large Canadian province were retrospectively reviewed. Based on eligibility criteria as described in registration trials of vemurafenib (Vem) and ipilimumab (Ipi), we classified patients into trial-eligible and ineligible and those treated and untreated with these agents. We identified 290 patients with known BRAF status for the Vem analysis and 212 patients previously treated with first-line agents for the Ipi analysis. For the Vem cohort, a total of 49 patients were considered trial-eligible, of whom 36 (73%) received treatment. For the Ipi cohort, there were 119 trial-eligible cases of whom 43 (36%) received therapy. Factors other than eligibility criteria most frequently associated with non-treatment in these cohorts included concerns regarding treatment harm and patient preferences. In multivariable analysis, overall survival was improved in Vem cohort patients considered trial-eligible and treated compared to those who were ineligible. Within the Ipi cohort, survival was improved in trial-eligible patients regardless of whether they received Ipi compared to ineligible patients. Real-world uptake of new melanoma treatments was suboptimal, and non-use in trial-eligible patients was frequent. Future clinical trials that are more pragmatically designed to include participants who better reflect the real-world population may facilitate increased uptake of novel therapeutics into routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29915956What 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.