Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33563635›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2021

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Washout Period and Concomitant Medication Work Group.

R Donald Harvey, Kathryn F Mileham, Vishal Bhatnagar, Jamie R Brewer, Atiqur Rahman, Cassadie Moravek, Andrew S Kennedy, Elizabeth A Ness, E Claire Dees, S Percy Ivy and 3 more

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

R Donald HarveyEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. rdharve@emory.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4217-1313
Kathryn F MilehamLevine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0003-1334-7743
Vishal BhatnagarFDA, Washington, D.C.
Jamie R BrewerFDA, Washington, D.C.
Atiqur RahmanFDA, Washington, D.C.
Cassadie MoravekPancreatic Cancer Action Network, Manhattan Beach, California.
Andrew S KennedySarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee.ORCID 0000-0001-9761-2262
Elizabeth A NessNCI Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Maryland.
E Claire DeesUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
S Percy IvyNCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bethesda, Maryland.
Scot W EbbinghausMerck & Co., North Wales, Pennsylvania.
Caroline SchenkelAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia.ORCID 0000-0002-3613-8509
Thomas S UldrickFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0001-6959-0924

Funding

Winship Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA138292 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Suresh S Ramalingam · 2009 to 2026
$47.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWashout periods and concomitant medication exclusions are common in cancer clinical trial protocols. These exclusion criteria are often applied inconsistently and without evidence to justify their use. The authors sought to determine how washout period and concomitant medication allowances can be broadened to speed trial enrollment and improve the generalizability of trial data to a larger oncology practice population without compromising the safety of trial participants. EXPERIMENTAL

designA multistakeholder working group was convened to define problems associated with excessively long washout periods and exclusion of patients due to concomitant medications. The group performed a literature search and evaluated study data from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), Emory University School of Medicine (Atlanta, GA), and the FDA to understand recent approaches to these eligibility criteria. The group convened to develop consensus recommendations for broadened eligibility criteria.

resultsThe data analysis found that exclusion criteria based on washout periods and concomitant medications are frequently inconsistent and lack scientific rationale. Scientific rationale for appropriate eligibility criteria are presented in the article; for washout periods, rationale is presented by treatment type.

conclusionsArbitrary or blanket washout and concomitant medication exclusions should be eliminated. Where there is evidence to support them, clinically relevant washout periods and concomitant medication-related eligibility criteria may be included.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Decision-MakingClinical Trials as TopicDisease ManagementHumansMedical Oncology

Identifiers

PMID33563635
PMCPMC8102304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.