Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32799406›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2020

Patients' Understanding of Oncology Clinical Endpoints: Environmental Scan and Focus Groups.

Helen W Sullivan, Amie C O'Donoghue, Kate Ferriola-Bruckenstein, Janice P Tzeng, Vanessa Boudewyns

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Physicians' use of and preferences for FDA-approved prescribing information.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Helen W SullivanU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7621-7554
Amie C O'DonoghueU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Kate Ferriola-BruckensteinRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Janice P TzengRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Vanessa BoudewynsRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
RTI International · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding treatment options is important for patients with cancer and their caregivers. This may be difficult, however, because oncology treatments are often approved based on complex clinical endpoints. The study aimed to explore lay understanding of oncology clinical endpoints by assessing the definitions of clinical endpoints available online and gathering qualitative focus group data on cancer survivors' and the general public's understanding of clinical endpoints.

methodsWe conducted an environmental scan to find Web sites accessible by a general audience that defined three clinical endpoints: overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate. Next, we conducted a series of eight focus groups across the U.S. with cancer survivors (n = 36) and general population adults (n = 36).

resultsWe found several online resources defining each endpoint; however, many of the definitions we identified used technical language that may not be easily understood by patients and caregivers. Few focus group participants were familiar with the technical terms for these endpoints. When presented with the endpoint terms and definitions, participants had misconceptions about treatment efficacy. Specifically, they tended to expect that all endpoints were a variation on living longer.

conclusionThe results point to the need for more patient-friendly definitions of clinical endpoints developed with input from the general public and from patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As the number of oncology prescription drug approvals and the advertising of those drugs to consumers increase, it is timely and critical to understand how to discuss treatment benefits with patients. Patient-friendly definitions of common clinical endpoints, such as overall survival and progression-free survival, would help health care providers describe treatment benefits to patients. This research provides evidence regarding patients' understanding of these endpoints and suggests definitions for additional research. This represents a first step in creating evidence-based patient-friendly language to describe clinical endpoints.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyNeoplasmsAdultDrug ApprovalFocus GroupsHumansTreatment OutcomeCommunicationFocus groupOncologyOverall survivalPatientProgression-free survival

Identifiers

PMID32799406
PMCPMC7938416
OpenAlexW3049112040

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.