Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35262715›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Comparison of 3 Randomized Clinical Trials of Frontline Therapies for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Tomer Meirson, Francesca Pentimalli, Francesco Cerza, Giovanni Baglio, Steven G Gray, Pierpaolo Correale, Marija Krstic-Demonacos, Gal Markel, Antonio Giordano, David Bomze and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. CDKN2A deletion is associated with immune desertification in diffuse pleural mesothelioma.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Tomer MeirsonDavidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center-Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel.
Francesca PentimalliDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Libera Università Mediterranea "Giuseppe Degennaro", Bari, Italy.
Francesco CerzaItalian National Agency for Regional Healthcare Services, Rome.
Giovanni BaglioItalian National Agency for Regional Healthcare Services, Rome.
Steven G GrayThoracic Oncology Research Group, Trinity St James's Cancer Institute, Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Pierpaolo CorrealeUnit of Medical Oncology, Oncology Department, Grand Metropolitan Hospital "Bianchi Melacrino Morelli," Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Marija Krstic-DemonacosBiomedical Research Center, School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom.
Gal MarkelDavidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center-Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel.
Antonio GiordanoSbarro Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Center for Biotechnology, College of Science and Technology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
David BomzeSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Luciano MuttiSbarro Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Center for Biotechnology, College of Science and Technology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Regional Health · USTel Aviv University · ILTemple University · USLUM Jean Monnet University · ITMetropolitan Hospital · GRRabin Medical Center · ILSt. James's Hospital · IEUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Some recently proposed frontline therapies for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) are very costly, yet their impact on quality of life and overall survival of these patients remains arguable. Given the high social toll of this aggressive occupational cancer, it is paramount to establish the real clinical benefit of these treatments. Objective: To directly compare and analyze the statistical robustness of the 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of frontline therapies recommended for MPM since 2003. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study assessed the following phase 3 RCTs: the Mesothelioma Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MPS) of cisplatin plus pemetrexed vs cisplatin; the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS) of cisplatin plus pemetrexed plus bevacizumab vs cisplatin plus pemetrexed; and the CheckMate743 (CM743) study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs cisplatin plus pemetrexed. Data collection dates for the RCTs ranged from April 1999 to April 2018. Data for this study were analyzed from February to October 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient selection criteria, superiority of the intervention groups, survival-inferred fragility index, and censoring patterns in each RCT. Results: A total of 1501 patients were included in the analysis (1170 men [77.9%]; range of median age for treatment groups, 60 [IQR, 19-84] to 69 [IQR, 65-75] years). A virtual comparison of overall survival in MAPS vs the CM743 study showed no statistically significant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.79-1.20]; P = .79), and the survival-inferred fragility index in the intention-to-treat (ITT) populations was as low as 0.22% of the total sample size in MPS, -0.45% of the total sample size in MAPS, and 0.99% of the total sample size in the CM743 trial. Moreover, reverse restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis of overall survival using RMST-difference (RMST-D) demonstrated differential censoring in the ITT population of the CM743 trial favoring the control group (0.56 [95% CI, 0.18-0.94]; P = .004) and in the nonepithelioid group (reverse RMST-D, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.001-1.79]; P = .048). Conclusions and Relevance: This comparative effectiveness study found no survival benefit in the CM743 trial over MAPS, despite the inclusion of patients with worse prognosis in the latter trial. Moreover, the statistical conclusions of all the examined trials were shown to be extremely fragile, and the findings of differential censoring in the CM743 trial and in the ITT nonepithelial subset raised additional areas of concern. These findings suggest that selection criteria, fragility, and censoring patterns may affect the original conclusions drawn for the respective trials, casting a shadow on the real benefit. This model of analysis lays a rigorous groundwork extendable to trials of all cancer treatments before their registration.

Indexed as

MesotheliomaMesothelioma, MalignantAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCisplatinFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPemetrexedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoung AdultCisplatinPemetrexed

Identifiers

PMID35262715
PMCPMC8908075
OpenAlexW4221049815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.