Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33625867›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2021

Learnings From Precision Clinical Trial Matching for Oncology Patients Who Received NGS Testing.

Neha M Jain, Alison Culley, Christine M Micheel, Travis J Osterman, Mia A Levy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. OncoCTMiner: streamlining precision oncology trial matching via molecular profile analysis.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Neha M JainVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0002-0168-7874
Alison CulleyVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Clinical Trial Shared Resource, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Christine M MicheelDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0002-7744-9039
Travis J OstermanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0002-2841-8121
Mia A LevyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0002-5944-2730

Funding

Integrated, Individualized, Intelligent Prescribing (I3P)U01HG007253 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI LEVY, MIA A., PETERSON, JOSEPH F. · 2014 to 2018
$4.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG007253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTumor next-generation sequencing reports typically generate trial recommendations for patients based on their diagnosis and genomic profile. However, these require additional refinement and prescreening, which can add to physician burden. We wanted to use human prescreening efforts to efficiently refine these trial options and also elucidate the high-value parameters that have a major impact on efficient trial matching.

methodsClinical trial recommendations were generated based on diagnosis and biomarker criteria using an informatics platform and were further refined by manual prescreening. The refined results were then compared with the initial trial recommendations and the reasons for false-positive matches were evaluated.

resultsManual prescreening significantly reduced the number of false positives from the informatics generated trial recommendations, as expected. We found that trial-specific criteria, especially recruiting status for individual trial arms, were a high value parameter and led to the largest number of automated false-positive matches.

conclusionReflex clinical trial matching approaches that refine trial recommendations based on the clinical details as well as trial-specific criteria have the potential to help alleviate physician burden for selecting the most appropriate trial for their patient. Investing in publicly available resources that capture the recruiting status of a trial at the cohort or arm level would, therefore, allow us to make meaningful contributions to increase the clinical trial enrollments by eliminating false positives.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyNeoplasmsCohort StudiesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumans

Identifiers

PMID33625867
PMCPMC8140789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.