Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37612602›Full record

Observational studyBMC cancer2023

Comparison of clinical outcomes among cancer patients treated in and out of clinical trials.

Jose A Carreno Duenas, Natalia Sanchez P, Carlos E Bonilla

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient and public involvement in randomized trials of lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with obesity: An umbrella review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Jose A Carreno DuenasInstituto Nacional de Cancerología - Colombia, Calle 1 # 9-85, Bogota, 110111, Colombia. alexcadu@gmail.com.
Natalia Sanchez PCentro de tratamiento e investigación sobre cáncer (CTIC), Calle 168 # 14 -49, Bogota, 110131, Colombia.
Carlos E BonillaCentro de tratamiento e investigación sobre cáncer (CTIC), Calle 168 # 14 -49, Bogota, 110131, Colombia.
Foundation for Clinical and Applied Cancer Research · COInstituto Nacional de Cancerología · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unknown if participation in a cancer clinical trial confers clinical benefits to patients. There is not enough scientific evidence in this regard and the available publications are scarce and provide ambiguous and limited information.

objectiveCompare overall and progression-free survival and response to treatment among those who met the eligibility criteria and accepted to participate and those who refused to participate in cancer clinical trials.

methodsAn observational cross-sectional study with an analytical component was carried out, which included patients diagnosed with cancer who participated in phase III clinical trials and patients who, being eligible, refused to participate. The patients were cared for at the National Institute of Cancerology in Colombia between 2019 and 2022. Analysis of differences in proportions and means of sociodemographic and clinical variables was included; overall survival and progression-free survival time were described and the survival curves between groups were compared. Variables related to survival were determined using a Cox regression model and Hazard Ratios were calculated.

results62 women and 50 men were included. In the women group, we found a statistical association between clinical trial participation and non-serious events adverse and progression. The stable disease and complete response were higher in participants than in refusers. The median progression-free survival for refusers was 7,4 m meantime for participants the median was not reached and 74,1% remained without progression at 28 months. In the men group, we also found a statistical association between clinical trial participation and the occurrence of non-serious events adverse meanwhile there were no significant differences in overall response, progression, and death, even though the proportion of progression was minor in participants 20% vs. refusers 26% respectively. The median survival was not reached for any group, even though in the participants group 55,2% were still alive at month 20 and in the refusers group still alive at 56,8% at month 45. Covariables included for the multivariate Cox regression only age had a statistical association with overall survival in the women's group and the men group any covariables reached statistical association.

conclusionIt can be considered that participation in clinical trials could give participants a better response to treatment, without increasing the probability of death and with the probability of decreasing the progression of the disease. Participation in trials could improve the outcomes of clinical response rates, no change in overall survival, and progression-free.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAgedClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalRegression AnalysisSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID37612602
PMCPMC10463452
OpenAlexW4386096113

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.