Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38611092›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

Real-World Data and Evidence in Lung Cancer: A Review of Recent Developments.

Eleni Kokkotou, Maximilian Anagnostakis, Georgios Evangelou, Nikolaos K Syrigos, Ioannis Gkiozos

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Real-world clinical experience with osimertinib in advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Educational and Equity Implications of Biomarker Testing and Targeted Therapy Access in NSCLC: Insights from the NIH All of Us Research Program.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eleni KokkotouOncology Unit, Third Department of Medicine, "Sotiria" General Hospital for Chest Diseases, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0009-0000-8067-3042
Maximilian AnagnostakisOncology Unit, Third Department of Medicine, "Sotiria" General Hospital for Chest Diseases, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.
Georgios EvangelouOncology Unit, Third Department of Medicine, "Sotiria" General Hospital for Chest Diseases, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-1858-2742
Nikolaos K SyrigosOncology Unit, Third Department of Medicine, "Sotiria" General Hospital for Chest Diseases, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-8082-594X
Ioannis GkiozosOncology Unit, Third Department of Medicine, "Sotiria" General Hospital for Chest Diseases, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-2902-3391
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional cancer clinical trials can be time-consuming and expensive, often yielding results with limited applicability to real-world scenarios and presenting challenges for patient participation. Real-world data (RWD) studies offer a promising solution to address evidence gaps and provide essential information about the effects of cancer treatments in real-world settings. The distinction between RWD and data derived from randomized clinical trials lies in the method of data collection, as RWD by definition are obtained at the point of care. Experimental designs resembling those used in traditional clinical trials can be utilized to generate RWD, thus offering multiple benefits including increased efficiency and a more equitable balance between internal and external validity. Real-world data can be utilized in the field of pharmacovigilance to facilitate the understanding of disease progression and to formulate external control groups. By utilizing prospectively collected RWD, it is feasible to conduct pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) that can provide evidence to support randomized study designs and extend clinical research to the patient's point of care. To ensure the quality of real-world studies, it is crucial to implement auditable data abstraction methods and develop new incentives to capture clinically relevant data electronically at the point of care. The treatment landscape is constantly evolving, with the integration of front-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, affecting subsequent treatment lines. Real-world effectiveness and safety in underrepresented populations, such as the elderly and patients with poor performance status (PS), hepatitis, or human immunodeficiency virus, are still largely unexplored. Similarly, the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of these innovative agents are important considerations in the real world.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedata qualityefficacyepidemiologylung cancermachine learningoncologyreal-world datareal-world evidencesafety

Identifiers

PMID38611092
PMCPMC11010882
OpenAlexW4393932047

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.