ArticleNPJ precision oncology2022
Challenges and opportunities associated with the MD Anderson IMPACT2 randomized study in precision oncology.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02152254 (Randomized Study Evaluating Molecular Profiling and Targeted Agents in Metastatic Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Randomized Study Evaluating Molecular Profiling and Targeted Agents in Metastatic Cancer: Initiative for Molecular Profiling and Advanced Cancer Therapy (IMPACT II)
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concordance analysis of DNA and RNA profiling: The MD Anderson IMPACT2 study in precision oncology.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Trial
- Opportunities and Challenges of Small Molecule Inhibitors in Glioblastoma Treatment: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials.Cancers · 2024Review
- Improved detection of clinically relevant fusion transcripts in cancer by machine learning classification.BMC genomics · 2023Article
- Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Genomic Profiling and Clinical Outcomes of Targeted Therapies in Adult Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcomas.Cells · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated the challenges of conducting IMPACT2, an ongoing randomized study that evaluates molecular testing and targeted therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02152254). Patients with metastatic cancer underwent tumor profiling and were randomized between the two arms when eligibility criteria were met (Part A). In Part B, patients who declined randomization could choose the study arm. In Part A, 69 (21.8%) of 317 patients were randomized; 78.2% were not randomized because of non-targetable alterations (39.8%), unavailability of clinical trial (21.8%), other reasons (12.6%), or availability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs for the indication (4.1%). In Part B, 32 (20.4%) of 157 patients were offered randomization; 16 accepted and 16 selected their treatment arm; 79.0% were not randomized (patient's/physician's choice, 29.3%; treatment selection prior to genomic reports, 16.6%; worsening performance status/death, 12.7%; unavailability of clinical trials, 6.4%; other, 6.4%; non-targetable alterations, 5.7%; or availability of FDA-approved drugs for the indication, 1.9%). In conclusion, although randomized controlled trials have been considered the gold standard for drug development, the execution of randomized trials in precision oncology in the advanced metastatic setting is complicated. We encountered various challenges conducting the IMPACT2 study, a large precision oncology trial in patients with diverse solid tumor types. The adaptive design of IMPACT2 enables patient randomization despite the continual FDA approval of targeted therapies, the evolving tumor biomarker landscape, and the plethora of investigational drugs. Outcomes for randomized patients are awaited.
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.