Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37396096›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2023

Randomised controlled trials evaluating anticancer therapies in haematological cancers: an overview of global research activity.

Manju Sengar, Wilma M Hopman, Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin, Aaron M Goodman, Bishal Gyawali, Deborah Mukherji, Nazik Hammad, C S Pramesh, Ajay Aggarwal, Richard Sullivan and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Manju SengarTata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai 400012, India.
Wilma M HopmanDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.
Ghulam Rehman MohyuddinDivision of Hematology and Haematological Malignancies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Aaron M GoodmanDivision of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA.
Bishal GyawaliDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.
Deborah MukherjiAmerican University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 11-0236, Lebanon.
Nazik HammadDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 5P9, Canada.
C S PrameshTata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai 400012, India.
Ajay AggarwalInstitute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, WC2R 2LS London, UK.
Richard SullivanInstitute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, WC2R 2LS London, UK.
Christopher M BoothDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Design, results, and interpretation of oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have changed substantially over the past decade. In this study, we describe all RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies in haematological cancers published globally during 2014-2017 with comparisons with solid tumours RCTs. Methods: A PubMed literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs of anticancer therapy for haematological cancers and solid tumours published globally during 2014-2017. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare RCT design results, and output between haematological cancers and solid tumours as well as for different haematological cancer subtypes. Results: 694 RCTs were identified; 124 in haematological cancers and 570 in solid tumours. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint in only 12% (15/124) of haematological cancer trials compared to 35% (200/570) in solid tumours ( Conclusion: The fact that only 12% of haematological cancer RCTs are designed to show improvements in OS is of grave concern for the field and the care of future patients. This is further compounded by the highly prevalent use of alternative primary endpoints that are rarely valid surrogates for OS in haematological cancers.

Indexed as

endpointshaematological cancersrandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID37396096
PMCPMC10310333

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.