Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33563637›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 Prior Therapies Work Group.

Raymond U Osarogiagbon, Diana Merino Vega, Lola Fashoyin-Aje, Suparna Wedam, Gwynn Ison, Sol Atienza, Peter De Porre, Tithi Biswas, Jamie N Holloway, David S Hong and 4 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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. AI for clinical trials in oncology.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Raymond U OsarogiagbonMultidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program, Baptist Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee. rosarogi@bmhcc.org.
Diana Merino VegaFriends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-6173-6957
Lola Fashoyin-AjeU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-7328-7813
Suparna WedamU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-0455-5399
Gwynn IsonU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Sol AtienzaAdvocate Aurora Health, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.ORCID 0000-0002-8404-8524
Peter De PorreJanssen Pharmaceutica, Beerse, Belgium.
Tithi BiswasUniversity Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0002-9074-733X
Jamie N HollowayPatient Advocate, Arlington, Virginia.ORCID 0000-0002-2255-4210
David S HongMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.ORCID 0000-0001-8721-1609
Madison M WempeFriends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC.
Richard L SchilskyAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia.ORCID 0000-0003-4474-4303
Edward S KimLevine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina.
James L WadeCancer Care Specialists of Central Illinois, Decatur, Illinois.

Funding

Baptist Memorial Health Care/Mid South NCORP Minority Underserved ConsortiumUG1CA189873 · NCI · BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - TIPTON · PI Raymond U. Osarogiagbon · 2014 to 2026
$11.9M
NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189873
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRestrictive eligibility criteria induce differences between clinical trial and "real-world" treatment populations. Restrictions based on prior therapies are common; minimizing them when appropriate may increase patient participation in clinical trials. EXPERIMENTAL

designA multi-stakeholder working group developed a conceptual framework to guide evaluation of prevailing practices with respect to using prior treatment as selection criteria for clinical trials. The working group made recommendations to minimize restrictions based on prior therapies within the boundaries of scientific validity, patient centeredness, distributive justice, and beneficence. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) Patients are eligible for clinical trials regardless of the number or type of prior therapies and without requiring a specific therapy prior to enrollment unless a scientific or clinically based rationale is provided as justification. (ii) Prior therapy (either limits on number and type of prior therapies or requirements for specific therapies before enrollment) could be used to determine eligibility in the following cases: a) the agents being studied target a specific mechanism or pathway that could potentially interact with a prior therapy; b) the study design requires that all patients begin protocol-specified treatment at the same point in the disease trajectory; and c) in randomized clinical studies, if the therapy in the control arm is not appropriate for the patient due to previous therapies received. (iii) Trial designers should consider conducting evaluation separately from the primary endpoint analysis for participants who have received prior therapies.

conclusionsClinical trial sponsors and regulators should thoughtfully reexamine the use of prior therapy exposure as selection criteria to maximize clinical trial participation.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Decision-MakingClinical Trials as TopicDisease ManagementHumansMedical OncologyResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID33563637
PMCPMC8170959

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.