ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2024
Clinical Benefits of new Systemic Therapy for Small-Cell Lung Cancer Over Two Decades: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSmall cell lung cancer (SCLC) is one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. This study aimed to examine the clinical benefits of new systemic therapies derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2002 to 2023 based on the magnitude of clinical benefit scale developed by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO-MCBS).
methodsWe searched PubMed for Phase 3 RCTs on systemic therapy for SCLC published between January 2002 and December 2023. Therapeutic benefit was graded from 5 to 1 according to the ESMO-MCBS framework, with a score of 4 or 5 representing a meaningful clinical benefit. The statistical power of the trial design was also assessed using ESMO-MCBS.
resultsSixty-four RCTs with 23 683 participants were eligible for inclusion. The number of RCTs related to molecular targeted therapy or immunotherapy has increased over the years. Among the 62 RCTs for which statistical power could be evaluated, 38 (61.3%) were designed to identify an effect size that would meet the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold and were less likely to investigate second- or subsequent-line treatment (15.8% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.004), have noninferiority design (0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.002) and set PFS (0% vs. 16.7%) or response rate (0% vs. 16.7%) as the only primary endpoint (p = 0.002). The ESMO-MCBS framework was applied in 29 RCTs reporting positive results, and only 8 (27.6%) met the threshold for a clinical benefit. The RCTs designed to detect differences that would meet the thresholds were more likely to demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit (87.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.099).
conclusionMost positive SCLC-RCTs did not meet the ESMO-MCBS threshold for meaningful clinical benefits. Strict power calculations should be adopted in the design of future RCTs.
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.