Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33948349›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of cancer research2021

Clinical endpoints in oncology - a primer.

Amanda Delgado, Achuta Kumar Guddati

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 193 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
193citing papers in PubMed, 18 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

193 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

133 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Amanda DelgadoDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta University GA 30912, Augusta.
Achuta Kumar GuddatiDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Georgia Cancer Center, Augusta University GA 30912, Augusta.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical endpoints are essential for assessing the safety and efficacy of new cancer therapies. They are used by oncologists to help guide clinical decision making. While overall survival (OS) has frequently been regarded as the "gold standard" primary clinical endpoint, it's utility is constrained by several disadvantages. The time-consuming nature of trials using OS has led to a recent push to explore surrogate clinical endpoints and their potential to serve as primary clinical endpoints in lieu of OS. Additionally, it is becoming evident that other endpoints add valuable information about quality of life and treatment failure as their use is becoming increasingly prevalent in oncology clinical trials. Without a doubt, the use of clinical endpoints will continue to expand and evolve as new cancer therapies are developed and novel treatments, including immunotherapy, draw interest. This review explores the roles of primary and surrogate clinical endpoints as well as the benefits and drawbacks of each specific endpoint. In addition, it directly compares the unique features of each suggesting some of the specific uses each one fulfills.

Indexed as

end pointoverall survivalProgressiontreatment failure

Identifiers

PMID33948349
PMCPMC8085844

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.