Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31483471›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2019

Association of National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trial Network Group Studies With Guideline Care and New Drug Indications.

Joseph M Unger, Van T Nghiem, Dawn L Hershman, Riha Vaidya, Michael LeBlanc, Charles D Blanke

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2019. 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
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. When to adjust for multiplicity in cancer clinical trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2025
    Article
  4. Association of albumin, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and lymphocytes with clinical stage in cervical cancer patients.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Article
  5. Patient Enrollment to Industry-Sponsored Versus Federally-Sponsored Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Population, Clinical, and Scientific Impact of National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network Treatment Studies.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph M UngerSWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, Washington.
Van T NghiemSWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, Washington.
Dawn L HershmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Riha VaidyaSWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, Washington.
Michael LeBlancSWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, Washington.
Charles D BlankeSWOG Group Chair's Office, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USOregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

SWOG Network Group Operations Center of the NCTNU10CA180888 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI PRIMO N. LARA · 2014 to 2026
$152.1M
SWOG Statistics & Data Management Center complex - extension supplement for GY06U10CA180819 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Michael L. LeBlanc · 2014 to 2026
$115.2M
SWOG NCORP Research BaseUG1CA189974 · NCI · THE HOPE FOUNDATION · PI CHARLES D. BLANKE, DAWN HERSHMAN · 2014 to 2026
$80.6M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180819NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180888NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) groups serve a vital role in identifying effective new antineoplastic regimens. However, the downstream clinical effect of their trials has not been systematically examined. Objective: To examine the association of NCTN trials with guideline care and new drug indications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated phase 3 SWOG Cancer Research Network clinical trials from January 1, 1980, through June 30, 2017. Only completed trials with published results were included. To be considered practice influential (PI), a trial must have been associated with guideline care through its inclusion in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines or US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new drug approvals in favor of a recommended treatment. Data were analyzed from June 15, 2018, through March 29, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated overall rate of PI trials, as well as trends over time. The total federal investment supporting the set of trials was also determined. Results: In total, 182 trials consisting of 148 028 patients were studied. Eighty-two studies (45.1%; 95% CI, 37.7%-52.6%) were PI, of which 70 (38.5%) influenced NCCN guidelines, 6 (3.3%) influenced FDA new drug approvals, and 6 (3.3%) influenced both. The number of PI trials was 47 of 65 (72.3%) among those with positive findings and 35 of 117 (29.9%) among those with negative findings. Thus, 35 of 82 PI trials (42.7%) were based on studies with negative findings, with nearly half of these studies (17 of 35 [48.6%]) reaffirming standard of care compared with experimental therapy. The total federal investment spent in conducting the trials was $1.36 billion (2017 US dollars), a rate of $7.5 million per study or $16.6 million per PI trial. Conclusions and Relevance: Nearly half of all phase 3 trials by one of the NCTN's largest groups were associated with guideline care or new drug indications, including those with positive and negative findings. Compared with the costs of a new drug approval in pharmaceutical companies, typically estimated at more than $1 billion, the amount of federal funds invested to provide this valuable evidence was modest. These results suggest that the NCTN program contributes clinically meaningful, cost-efficient evidence to guide patient care.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Clinical Trials, Phase III as TopicGovernment RegulationGuidelines as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID31483471
PMCPMC6727679
OpenAlexW2972295992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.