ArticleJAMA oncology2022
A New Approach to Simplifying and Harmonizing Cancer Clinical Trials-Standardizing Eligibility Criteria.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Protocol Design-Related Factors With Enrollment Duration in Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Mapping eligibility criteria in oncology target trial emulations using real-world data: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Data-driven trial design: use of target trial emulation to evaluate eligibility criteria in asthma and COPD.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of eligibility criteria on Kirsten rat sarcoma G12C inhibitor trials in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Adoptive cell therapies in solid tumors: current clinical landscape, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- A SITC vision: adapting clinical trials to accelerate drug development in cancer immunotherapy.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- Impact of travel costs on disparities in precision oncology clinical trials.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Article
- North American Cancer Center Clinical Research Capacity and Benchmarking in the Postpandemic Era.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- Brief Report: Real-World Eligibility for Clinical Trials in Patients With Extensive-Stage SCLC at a Tertiary Care Center.JTO clinical and research reports · 2024Article
- What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Quantitative evaluation of the impact of relaxing eligibility criteria on the risk-benefit profile of drugs for lung cancer based on real-world data.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Eligibility criteria: too big, too small or just right?Haematologica · 2024Article
- Travel Time and Distance and Participation in Precision Oncology Trials at the National Cancer Center Hospital.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Potential Impact of Revised NCI Eligibility Criteria Guidance: Prior Malignancy Exclusion in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Clinical trial sponsors rely on eligibility criteria to control the characteristics of patients in their studies, promote the safety of participants, and optimize the interpretation of results. However, in recent years, complex and often overly restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria have created substantial barriers to patient access to novel therapies, hindered trial recruitment and completion, and limited generalizability of trial results. A LUNGevity Foundation working group developed a framework for lung cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria. The goals of this framework are to (1) simplify eligibility criteria, (2) facilitate stakeholders' (patients, clinicians, and sponsors) search for appropriate trials, and (3) harmonize trial populations to support intertrial comparisons of treatment effects. Observations: Clinicians and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, the National Cancer Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency, and the LUNGevity Foundation undertook a process to identify and prioritize key items for inclusion in trial eligibility criteria. The group generated a prioritized library of terms to guide investigators and sponsors in the design of first-line, advanced non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials intended to support marketing application. These recommendations address disease stage and histologic features, enrollment biomarkers, performance status, organ function, brain metastases, and comorbidities. This effort forms the basis for a forthcoming FDA draft guidance for industry. Conclusions and Relevance: As an initial step, the recommended cross-trial standardization of eligibility criteria may harmonize trial populations. Going forward, by connecting diverse stakeholders and providing formal opportunity for public input, the emerging FDA draft guidance may also provide an opportunity to revise and simplify long-standing approaches to trial eligibility. This work serves as a prototype for similar efforts now underway for other cancers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.