Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36822113›Full record

ArticleESMO open2023

Real-world data in oncology: a questionnaire-based analysis of the academic research landscape examining the policies and experiences of the cancer cooperative groups.

R Saesen, D Lacombe, I Huys

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R SaesenEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium; Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy Research Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: robbe.saesen@eortc.org.
D LacombeEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
I HuysClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy Research Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BEKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-world data (RWD) have quickly emerged as an important source of information to address uncertainties about new treatments, including novel anticancer therapies. Many stakeholders are using such data and the evidence derived therefrom to answer the questions that remain about the safety and effectiveness of antitumor medicines after their approval by regulators. Our objective was to investigate the academic RWD study landscape and explore to what extent RWD are being integrated into investigator-initiated clinical research. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe designed an online survey that was distributed between May and August 2022 to representatives of cancer cooperative groups active in Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and/or Oceania.

resultsIn total, 125 cooperative groups operating in 58 different countries and conducting research across 13 distinct cancer domains participated in the survey. While most of the responders (67.2%) did not have a formal policy in place to gather and utilize RWD, a majority (68.0%) had carried out studies involving the analysis of such data before, both for exploratory and confirmatory purposes. The groups that were experienced in capturing and interpreting RWD had mainly worked with observational RWD that were not predominantly prospective or retrospective in nature and which originated from disease registries, electronic health records, and patient questionnaires. They perceived the low costs and the large scale of RWD research to be its most significant benefits, and viewed the accompanying methodological and operational challenges as its biggest constraints. However, they did not have a common understanding of what RWD were. Despite their experience with analyzing RWD, their research portfolio still primarily comprised traditional clinical trials; 62.5% of the groups that had never undertaken any RWD studies were nonetheless planning to initiate them in the future.

conclusionsCancer cooperative groups are already incorporating RWD studies into their research agendas, but still lack knowledge and expertise in this regard, and do not agree on what RWD are. The conduct of conventional clinical trials continues to be their priority.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsHumansPolicyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairescancercooperative groupsoncologyreal-world datareal-world evidencesurvey

Identifiers

PMID36822113
PMCPMC10163156
OpenAlexW4321506989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.