ArticleESMO open2023
Twelve ESMO Congress 2022 breakthroughs: practicing oncologists' perceptions and potential application on presented data.
Article in ESMO open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adverse events and oncologic outcomes with combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent endometrial cancer.Gynecologic oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2022, outcome data of a great number of clinical trials were presented. For the attending medical oncologist, it is important to structure these data in a way that facilitates a trade-off between treatment burden and benefit. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo illustrate this, we carried out a narrative non-systematic review of 12 selected oral presentations with potential impact on future daily practice, focusing on trial methodology, possible study flaws, reported clinical benefit and implementability.
resultsThe selected presentations encompassed 10 phase III trials, 1 randomized phase II trial and 1 phase II trial. In 7 out of 12 trials, quality of life and/or patient-reported outcomes had been evaluated. None of the trials, which reported progression-free survival (PFS) data, provided information, which could exclude informative censoring bias. In none of the trials reporting overall survival (OS) data, potential flaws due to undesirable crossover and imbalance between study groups regarding post-progression treatments were addressed. For the 11 reviewed randomized trials, the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) grade achieved with the new intervention was calculated based on the presented data. The MCBS grade varied from 1 to 5.
conclusionsOur review confirms the high-quality standard of current cancer research and the clinical relevance of the research questions answered. However, during presentation of PFS and/or OS data, factors known to affect PFS and OS analysis should be structurally addressed. In order to keep cancer care affordable and sustainable, it could be considered to include an ESMO-MCBS threshold in the drug appraisal process of regulatory authorities.
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.