ArticleJAMA network open2024
Cancer Trial Eligibility and Therapy Modifications for Individuals With Duffy Null-Associated Neutrophil Count.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic Duffy phenotyping reveals high prevalence of Duffy-null genotype among neutropenic patients.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Limited inclusion in clinical trials and access to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in racial and ethnic minority patients with cancer: a narrative review.The oncologist · 2026Review
- The tale of a transposition error.HemaSphere · 2026Article
- How exclusion criteria can hinder eligibility for lung cancer studies among different racial and ethnic groups.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring the effect of Duffy status on patients with breast cancer receiving cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- A paradigm shift in neutrophil adverse event grading: What now?HemaSphere · 2025Article
- A paradigm shift in neutrophil adverse event grading: Why now?HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Medical haematology trial eligibility and the Duffy null-associated neutrophil count: A cross-sectional study.HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Management of Graves Disease With Co-Existing Duffy-Null Phenotype.JCEM case reports · 2025Article
- Error in Abstract, Results, and Supplement 1.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The Duffy Null Phenotype - Addressing a Source of Discrimination in Cancer Care.The New England journal of medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) are used to determine cancer clinical trial (CCT) eligibility and systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) dose modifications. Duffy null-associated ANC (DANC) is a nonpathologic phenotype associated with lower ANC and most frequently seen in individuals with African and Middle Eastern ancestry. It is unclear whether CCTs exclude or SACT regimens modify doses for individuals with ANC within the DANC reference range. Objective: To investigate CCT exclusions and SACT dose modifications for ANC within the DANC reference range. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of contemporary CCTs and SACT regimens included adult, interventional, phase 3 CCTs for the 5 most prevalent cancers in the US and United Kingdom (prostate, breast, melanoma, colorectal, and lung cancers) testing SACTs with start dates between November 1, 2021, and November 1, 2023, and that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Preferred curative-intent SACT regimens were listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Exposure: Cancer clinical trial exclusions and SACT regimen modifications. Main Outcome and Measures: Proportions of CCTs that exclude and SACT regimens that modify doses for individuals with an ANC within the DANC reference range. Results: For CCTs, 289 of 382 trials (75.7%) were eligible, of which 221 (76.5% [95% CI, 71.1%-81.2%]) excluded patients with ANC values within the DANC reference range. Colorectal CCTs had the highest (38 of 44 [86.4% (95% CI, 72.6%-94.8%)]) and prostate CCTs had the lowest (11 of 23 [47.8% (95% CI, 26.8%-69.4%)]) proportions of exclusions. Of CCTs testing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 116 of 142 (81.7% [95% CI, 74.3%-87.7%]) had exclusions; 93 of 123 (75.6% [95% CI, 67.0%-82.9%]) CCTs testing targeted therapies alone and 12 of 24 (50.0% [95% CI, 29.1%-70.9%]) testing hormonal therapies alone had exclusions. Among the 113 US- and UK-based trials, exclusions were present in 89 (78.8% [95% CI, 70.1%-85.9%]). Of 71 SACT regimens, 38 (53.5% [95% CI, 41.3%-65.5%]) included dose modifications for ANC values within the DANC reference range. Lung cancer regimens had the highest (23 of 31 [74.2% (95% CI, 55.4%-88.1%)]) and prostate cancer had the lowest (0 of 12 [0 (95% CI, 0%-26.4%)]) proportions of modifications. Regimens including chemotherapy had modifications in 32 of 44 (72.7% [95% CI, 57.2%-85.0%]); 11 of 20 (55.0% [95% CI, 31.5%-76.9%]) of targeted therapy regimens and 0 of 16 (0% [95% CI, 0%-20.6%]) of hormonal therapy regimens had modifications. Among regimens including chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy, modifications were present in 38 of 55 (69.1% [95% CI, 49.7%-73.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, substantial proportions of CCTs excluded and SACT regimens modified doses for patients with ANCs in the DANC reference range. These practices structurally discriminate against patients of African and Middle Eastern ancestry. While determining optimal SACT dose modifications requires further study, CCT exclusion criteria should be revised.
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.