Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38756153›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2024

Landscape of cancer clinical trials in India - a comprehensive analysis of the Clinical Trial Registry-India.

Peng Gao, Justin Chen, Zhongyu Hong, Marcus Choi, Allison Morgan, Anton Petushkov, Rajuli Lall, Chao Liu, Vamshi K Muddu, Venugopal Arroju and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Peng GaoPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Justin ChenPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Zhongyu HongPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Marcus ChoiPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Allison MorganPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Anton PetushkovPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Rajuli LallPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Chao LiuPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Vamshi K MudduAsian Institute of Gastroenterology (AIG) Hospitals, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Venugopal ArrojuPi Health Cancer Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Chinnababu SunkavalliYashoda Cancer Hospitals, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Geoffrey KimPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Bobby Y ReddyPi Health USA, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in India. Clinical trials are critical for driving innovation in cancer therapy, diagnosis, and prevention. This study aims to depict the evolving landscape of cancer clinical trials in India by analysing the clinical trials registered in Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI). Methods: We identified cancer trials registered in CTRI (between 2007 and 2021) using search terms adapted from the cancer types defined by the National Cancer Institute (USA). We then collated and analysed the publicly available information from CTRI (cancer subtypes, type of trial, treatment intent, type of intervention, sponsor type, recruitment countries) and used descriptive statistics to illustrate the overall as well as year-to-year trend. Findings: In total, we identified 1988 cancer trials, the majority of which focused on treating cancer (63%) and rest of the trials aimed at optimising the operational aspects of surgery (19%), mitigating treatment-related toxicity (10.6%), or treating cancer-related symptoms (7.8%). Focusing on trials with the intent of treating cancer, we found that most were investigating solid tumours as opposed to haematological malignancies with the most prominent cancer subtypes being breast cancer (17%), head and neck cancer (9.8%), lung cancer (9.6%), and cervical cancer (6.6%). The number of trials conducted in a given cancer subtype from our analysis overall correlated to the incidence, mortality, and 5-year prevalence of the respective cancer subtype in India; however, head and neck cancer and cervical cancer were underrepresented in trials as compared with the disease burden. The most common type of intervention was investigational drugs. The most common sponsor types were global pharmaceutical industry (26%) and research institution and hospital (26%). Despite a relatively high cancer burden, the availability of cancer trials in the Northeastern states of India was limited. Interpretation: There is a pressing need for clinical cancer research in India to be better aligned with the nation's healthcare needs and disease burden, focusing on prevalent and deadly cancers while ensuring the availability of clinical trials across geographic regions and underserved populations. Funding: Pi Health USA, a fully owned subsidiary of BeiGene Ltd.

Indexed as

CancerClinical trialClinical Trial Registry-IndiaOncology

Identifiers

PMID38756153
PMCPMC11096683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.