ReviewJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2020
Master protocols in immuno-oncology: do novel drugs deserve novel designs?
Review in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Semantic and Geographical Analysis of COVID-19 Trials Reveals a Fragmented Clinical Research Landscape Likely to Impair Informativeness.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Maximizing the value of phase III trials in immuno-oncology: A checklist from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC).Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2022Article
- Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Improvement of the anticancer efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade via combination therapy and PD-L1 regulation.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2022Review
- Current Landscape of Immunotherapy Trials Involving the Programmed Cell Death Protein 1/Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Axis in Intrathoracic Tumors.JTO clinical and research reports · 2021Article
- Lights and Shadows in Immuno-Oncology Drug Development.Cancers · 2021Article
- Highly Multiplexed Phenotyping of Immunoregulatory Proteins in the Tumor Microenvironment by CODEX Tissue Imaging.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid rise to fame of immuno-oncology (IO) drugs has generated unprecedented interest in the industry, patients and doctors, and has had a major impact in the treatment of most cancers. An interesting aspect in the clinical development of many IO agents is the increasing reliance on nonconventional trial design, including the so-called 'master protocols' that incorporate various adaptive features and often heavily rely on biomarkers to select patient populations most likely to benefit. These novel designs promise to maximize the clinical benefit that can be reaped from clinical research, but are not without costs. Their acceptance as solid evidence basis for use outside of the research context requires profound cultural changes by multiple stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, decision-makers, statisticians, researchers, doctors and, most importantly, patients. Here we review characteristics of recent and ongoing trials testing IO drugs with unconventional design, and we highlight trends and critical aspects.
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.