Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32882030›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2021

"I Think It's Been Met With a Shrug:" Oncologists' Views Toward and Experiences With Right-to-Try.

Cambray Smith, Jeremiah Stout, Alex A Adjei, Jan Buckner, Mark Wentworth, Jon Tilburt, Zubin Master

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Response to Martani, Tomasi, and Casanto.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cambray SmithBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA and School of Medicine, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9723-891X
Jeremiah StoutBiomedical Ethics Research Program and Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1621-157X
Alex A AdjeiDepartment of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jan BucknerDepartment of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mark WentworthOffice of Research Regulatory Support, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3664-1999
Jon TilburtBiomedical Ethics Research Program and General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Zubin MasterBiomedical Ethics Research Program and Center for Regenerative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3462-4546
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
Yale-Mayo FDA Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and InnovationU01FD005938 · FDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Joseph Solomon Ross · 2016 to 2026
$25.4M
Assessing Patient Experience in Cancer Care: An Observational Communication StudyR01AT006515 · NCCIH · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI TILBURT, JON C · 2011 to 2015
$3.5M
FDA HHS U01 FD005938NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT006515
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe federal Right-to-Try (RTT) Act created an alternate regulatory pathway for preapproval access to investigational drugs. A few studies have examined the experiences of physicians with the Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access Programs, but to our knowledge, no study has yet to examine their attitudes and experiences toward RTT.

methodsThis study explored the views of 21 oncologists at a major cancer center with 3 main sites across the United States using semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis. Participants were selected to have experience with Expanded Access Programs.

resultsMost oncologists had limited familiarity with RTT, and several reported confusion about the legislation, including whether patients have a right to investigational drugs and an obligation for companies to provide them. Although oncologists were interested in decreased regulatory burdens, 3 areas of concern were articulated: lack of safety and oversight, unclear structure and no provision for data collection, and potential heightening of patient expectations. Only 4 oncologists had experience discussing RTT, and none formally attempted to obtain the drug through this mechanism. Participants questioned the practicality of RTT legislation and suggested alternative ways to improve access.

conclusionsThe study provides foundational empirical data underlying challenging ambiguities by experienced oncologists familiar with off-trial use of investigational therapeutics and reaffirms the role of physicians and regulatory bodies in mitigating the risks of investigational drugs. Our findings highlight the need for medical centers to inform oncologists about RTT and other preapproval pathways so that they are able to address questions from patients interested in nontrial investigational drugs.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsOncologistsCompassionate Use TrialsDrugs, InvestigationalHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationDrugs, Investigational

Identifiers

PMID32882030
PMCPMC8248965
OpenAlexW3083106494

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.