Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34551954›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2021

The opportunity of patient-journey studies for academic clinical research in oncology.

Francesco Perrone, Raimondo Di Liello, Piera Gargiulo, Laura Arenare, Lorenzo Guizzaro, Paolo Chiodini, Ciro Gallo, Maria Carmela Piccirillo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Francesco PerroneClinical Trial Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy f.perrone@istitutotumori.na.it.ORCID 0000-0002-9738-0526
Raimondo Di LielloClinical Trial Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4511-7969
Piera GargiuloClinical Trial Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Laura ArenareClinical Trial Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Lorenzo GuizzaroMedical Statistics Unit, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Napoli, Italy.
Paolo ChiodiniMedical Statistics Unit, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Napoli, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0139-2264
Ciro GalloMedical Statistics Unit, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Napoli, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7939-3104
Maria Carmela PiccirilloClinical Trial Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A wave of new treatments and treatment combinations are becoming available for solid tumours. Trials performed to obtain registration establish a positive benefit-risk but unavoidably leave many questions unanswered on place-in-therapy and the relative efficacy of different treatment sequences. Such limitations create problems in terms of strength of treatment guidelines and reimbursement (in countries where a public payer exists). Data on new drugs arriving during the last 10 years for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and renal cancer are reported as an example of how the fortunate condition of having new effective treatments may translate into uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment plan. We suggest that academic research should react to such limitations and propose a model of patient-journey study (PJS), where patients are followed from the initial diagnosis across subsequent lines of treatment. A PJS master protocol might include at each node of clinical decision either the possibility of choosing treatment according to guidelines (generating prospective real-world evidence) or the possibility to randomise where uncertainty exists (generating comparative effectiveness data). PJS protocols might be adaptively modified every time a new drug arrives on the market. Overall, methodologically sound analyses of PJS will produce knowledge on the efficacy and the effectiveness of different treatment pathways and might significantly optimise treatment of patients in clinical practice. PJS would represent a jump from a few snapshots (trials performed to get regulatory approval) to a full movie (evidence on the relative value of treatment pathways).

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsHumansProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUncertaintyclinical trialsstatistics & research methodstherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID34551954
PMCPMC8461282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.