ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Early-phase clinical trials in the pandemic era: a four-year experience from an academic cancer center.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early-phase clinical trials are the first step in cancer drug development. However, they are becoming difficult to conduct - increased complexity of treatments, multiple stakeholders, and most importantly, the changes imposed by the COVID19 pandemic. We report our experience during and since the pandemic, focusing on early-phase clinical trials for solid tumors. From 2020-2023, our accruals improved by 161% (from 33 to 86). We consented 260 patients; of those, 176 (68%) fulfilled all eligibility criteria and started therapy - trials included immunotherapy (74, 42%), targeted therapy (43, 24%), novel molecules (30, 17%), cellular therapy/oncolytic viruses (19, 11%), and pharmacokinetic assessment trials of standard therapies (10, 6%). We increased staffing from 4 to 12 over this period, instituted hybrid work policies, created a dedicated triage nurse to reduce screen failures, and developed disease-specific sub-teams for better efficiencies and lower error rates. These efforts allowed us to improve the quantity and quality of our accruals.
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.