Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32681475›Full record

ArticleInvestigational new drugs2021

The proportion of North American cancer trials that evaluate novel targets.

Eli Gumnit, Aden C Feustel, Sandy Wong, Rafia Bosan, Nora Hutchinson, Jonathan Kimmelman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Investigational new drugs, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eli GumnitBiomedical Ethics Unit/Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Aden C FeustelBiomedical Ethics Unit/Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Sandy WongBiomedical Ethics Unit/Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Rafia BosanBiomedical Ethics Unit/Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Nora HutchinsonBiomedical Ethics Unit/Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Jonathan KimmelmanDivision of Ethics and Policy/School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada. jonathan.kimmelman@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1614-6779
McGill University · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

CIHR EOG 111391
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Major advances in cancer care often emerge from the development of novel targets. We randomly sampled 10% of cancer trials on clinicaltrials.gov with start dates 2013-2016 to determine the proportion of trials and research subjects directed at evaluating novel targets. We found that 87 of 378 trials (23.0%) enrolling 9225 of 44,525 patients (20.7%) tested interventions that are directed towards novel targets. 146 of 378 trials (38.6%) enrolling 19,132 of 44,525 patients (43.0%) investigated treatments that were not FDA approved but utilized a previously studied target for treating cancer. Combined, 233 of 378 trials (61.6%) enrolling 28,357 of 44,525 patients (63.9%) investigated treatments that were not FDA approved. Furthermore, 36 of 378 trials (9.5%) enrolling 6592 of 44,525 patients (14.8%) investigated FDA approved anticancer drugs in their approved indication and combination while 109 of 378 trials (28.8%) enrolling 9576 of 44,525 patients (21.5%) investigated FDA approved anticancer drugs outside of their approved indication or combination. Logistic regression found that phase 1 trials were significantly more likely to test novel target interventions than phase 2 and 3 trials (p value = 0.00197 and 0.00130 respectively). Industry sponsored trials were also significantly more likely to involve novel target interventions than non-industry trials (p value <0.001). In conclusion, most cancer trials involve unapproved treatments, but a majority of these treatments are well-characterized or involve a previously studied target to treat cancer.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicHumansLogistic ModelsNeoplasmsNorth AmericaResearch SubjectsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntineoplastic AgentsCancerClinical trialsDrug developmentDrug noveltyTarget noveltyTrial novelty

Identifiers

PMID32681475
OpenAlexW3043204261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.