ArticleCancer medicine2024
Examining external control arms in oncology: A scoping review of applications to date.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Plitidepsin in combination with dexamethasone (ADMYRE trial) versus an external control arm of pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.Annals of hematology · 2026Trial
- Next-generation synthetic trials in hematology with generative artificial intelligence.Leukemia · 2026Review
- AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Combining external placebo-arm data in a prevention trial: effects of cocoa extract supplementation on cardiovascular disease.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-generated synthetic data for cancer research and clinical trials.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Generative Artificial Intelligence Transitions Pharmaceutical Development from Empirical Screening to Predictive Molecular Design and Clinical Trial Optimization.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Regulatory Perspective on a UK Federated Data Network for Medicines and Medical Devices: Lessons from a 'Study-A-Thon'.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Synthetic Data in Healthcare and Drug Development: Definitions, Regulatory Frameworks, Issues.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Review
- Examining external control arms in oncology: A scoping review of applications to date.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of new cancer therapies. However, enrolling patients in control arms of clinical trials can be challenging for rare cancers, particularly in the context of precision oncology and targeted therapies. External Control Arms (ECAs) are a potential solution to address these challenges in clinical research design. We conducted a scoping review to explore the use of ECAs in oncology.
methodsWe systematically searched four databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligible articles focusing on patients undergoing therapy for cancer, employing ECAs, and reporting clinical outcomes.
resultsOf the 629 articles screened, 23 were included in this review. The earliest included studies were published in 1996, while most studies were published in the past 5 years. 44% (10/23) of ECAs were employed in blood-related cancer studies. Geographically, 30% (7/23) of studies were conducted in the United States, 22% (5/23) in Japan, and 9% (2/23) in South Korea. The primary data sources used to construct the ECAs involved pooled data from previous trials (35%, 8/23), administrative health databases (17%, 4/23) and electronic medical records (17%, 4/23). While 52% (12/23) of the studies employed methods to align treatment and ECAs characteristics, 48% (11/23) lacked explicit strategies.
conclusionECAs offer a valuable approach in oncology research, particularly when alternative designs are not feasible. However, careful methodological planning and detailed reporting are essential for meaningful and reliable results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.