ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2020
Patient-Centered Approach to Benefit-Risk Characterization Using Number Needed to Benefit and Number Needed to Harm: Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work summarizes the benefit and risk of the results of clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration of therapies for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using number needed to benefit (NNB) and number needed to harm (NNH) metrics. NNB and NNH metrics have been reported as potentially being more patient centric and more intuitive to medical practitioners than more common metrics, such as the hazard ratio, and valuable to medical practitioners in complementing other metrics, such as the median time to event. This approach involved the characterization of efficacy and safety results in terms of NNB and NNH of 30 clinical trials in advanced NSCLC supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval decisions from 2003 to 2017. We assessed trends of NNB over time of treatment (eg, for programmed death 1 inhibitors) and variation of NNB across subpopulations (eg, characterized by epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, programmed death ligand 1 expression, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, age, and extent of disease progression). Furthermore, the evolution of NNB of treatments for advanced NSCLC was charted from 2003 to 2017. Across subpopulations, NNB, on average, was 4 patients for approved targeted therapies in molecularly enriched populations, 11 patients for approved therapies in nonmolecularly enriched populations, and 23 patients for withdrawn or unapproved therapies. Furthermore, the NNB analysis showed variation for attributes of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, level of programmed death 1 expression, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, etc. When considering the best-case subpopulations and available drugs, the NNB frontier reduced from an estimated value of 7.7 in 2003 to an estimated value of 2.5 in 2017 at the estimated median overall survival-equal to 6 months-of an untreated patient.
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.