Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39331494›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2024

Patient Enrollment to Industry-Sponsored Versus Federally-Sponsored Cancer Clinical Trials.

Joseph M Unger, Hong Xiao, Riha Vaidya, Michael LeBlanc

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Frailty and neuropathy in chemotherapy patients: moderated mediation roles of fatigue and mindfulness on CIPN, anxiety, and depression.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Development, Review, and Activation of Thoracic Oncology Investigator-Initiated Trials.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Article
  19. When to adjust for multiplicity in cancer clinical trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2025
    Article
  20. BREAST CANCER: STEPS AND STUMBLES ON THE WAY TO PRECISION MEDICINE.Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Joseph M UngerFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA.ORCID 0000-0002-5191-0317
Hong XiaoFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA.ORCID 0000-0002-5113-2367
Riha VaidyaFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA.ORCID 0000-0001-5316-6352
Michael LeBlancFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA.

Funding

SWOG NCORP Research BaseUG1CA189974 · NCI · THE HOPE FOUNDATION · PI CHARLES D. BLANKE, DAWN HERSHMAN · 2014 to 2026
$80.6M
NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe conduct of cancer clinical research in the United States is supported by both private and public sponsors. Industry aims to obtain new drug approvals. Federally-sponsored trials examine a broad set of research questions that are not typically addressed by industry; these trials, which are also more commonly conducted in diverse populations, were recently shown to have contributed to gains of 14 million life-years for patients with cancer. Despite the different mandates, the proportion of patients who might participate in industry-sponsored versus federally-sponsored cancer studies is unknown.

methodsWe evaluated trial enrollment patterns from 2008 to 2022 using ClinicalTrials.gov data. The ratio of enrollments attributable to industry versus federal sponsors was estimated. A large set of estimates on the basis of different combinations of study characteristics were generated. Point estimates were determined as the mean of combinations and confidence limits by the IQR. Five-year intervals were examined to smooth annual variation.

resultsIn total, N = 26,080 studies were examined. The estimated enrollment ratio from 2018 to 2022 for all industry-sponsored versus federally-sponsored trials was 8.1 (IQR, 6.2-9.9). For adult trials, the ratio increased from 4.8 (IQR, 4.4-5.3) during 2008-2012 to 9.6 (IQR, 7.4-11.8) during 2018-2022; for trials in children, the ratio increased from 0.7 (IQR, 0.6-0.7) to 2.3 (IQR, 1.8-2.7). Despite increasing cancer incidence, enrollment counts for federally-sponsored trials were flat over the study period.

conclusionIn the United States, there is a growing reliance on industry to conduct cancer clinical research. Underinvestment in federally-sponsored research comes at a cost for both patients and researchers, with lost opportunities for scientific, clinical, and population advances.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryNeoplasmsHumansPatient SelectionResearch Support as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39331494
PMCPMC11575909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.