Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40257799›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2025

Clinical Trial Notifications Triggered by Artificial Intelligence-Detected Cancer Progression: A Randomized Trial.

Tali Mazor, Karim S Farhat, Pavel Trukhanov, James Lindsay, Matthew Galvin, Emily Mallaber, Morgan A Paul, Michael J Hassett, Deborah Schrag, Ethan Cerami and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06888089 (Deep Clinical Trajectory Modeling to Optimize Accrual to Cancer Clinical Trials), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06888089 nacompletednot on this map

Deep Clinical Trajectory Modeling to Optimize Accrual to Cancer Clinical Trials

TypeinterventionalSponsorDana-Farber Cancer InstituteRan2023 to 2024Enrolled20,707ConditionsCancerArmsAI-assisted MatchMiner Platform
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. AI for clinical trials in oncology.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

11 authors.

Tali MazorKnowledge Systems Group, Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Karim S FarhatDivision of Population Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Pavel TrukhanovKnowledge Systems Group, Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
James LindsayKnowledge Systems Group, Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Matthew GalvinKnowledge Systems Group, Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Emily MallaberKnowledge Systems Group, Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Morgan A PaulDepartment of Data Sciences, Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael J HassettDivision of Population Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Deborah SchragDepartment of Medicine, Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Ethan CeramiKnowledge Systems Group, Department of Data Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kenneth L KehlDivision of Population Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Deep clinical trajectory modeling to optimize accrual to cancer clinical trialsR00CA245899 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI KEHL, KENNETH L · 2022 to 2024
$747k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R00 CA245899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Historically, fewer than 10% of adults with cancer have enrolled in clinical trials. Computational tools have been developed to match patients to trials, but these tools are relevant only when patients need new treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether notifying oncologists about genomically targeted clinical trials for patients with cancer progression, as detected by artificial intelligence (AI), impacts clinical trial participation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center randomized trial was conducted from January 30, 2023, to June 30, 2024, at a tertiary academic cancer center. Participants were patients aged at least 18 years in a precision oncology clinical trial matching database who had solid tumors that underwent next-generation sequencing from July 2013 to December 2022, and were alive as of January 30, 2023. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to the intervention or control arm. In the intervention arm, when patients had cancer progression and an elevated probability of starting new treatment based on AI applied to their imaging reports, notifications about genomically matched clinical trials were sent to their oncologists. In the control arm, no such notifications were sent. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was enrollment in any therapeutic clinical trial. Prespecified secondary outcomes included consent to any therapeutic trial, consent and enrollment among patients ever ascertained as trial ready, the proportion of new systemic therapies that were given as part of clinical trials, and survey responses from clinicians who received notifications. Results: Of 20 707 patients randomized (57.26% female; median age at the time of sequencing, 60 years [IQR, 50-69 years]), 13 802 were randomized to the intervention arm and 6905 to the control arm. The intervention had no significant impact on the trial enrollment rate (intervention, 2.20% [95% CI, 1.97%-2.46%]; control, 2.03% [95% CI, 1.72%-2.39%]; difference, 0.18 [95% CI, -0.25 to 0.58] percentage points; P = .41). Similarly, there were no significant differences in trial enrollment between the intervention and control arms among the 2127 patients ever ascertained as trial ready (18.05% [95% CI, 16.15%-20.12%] vs 18.50% [95% CI, 15.78%-21.56%]; difference, -0.45 [95% CI, -4.01 to 3.02] percentage points; P = .80) or among the 2036 patients who ever started new systemic therapy (22.67% [95% CI, 20.51%-24.99%] vs 20.14% [95% CI, 17.33%-23.29%]; difference, 2.53 [95% CI, -1.25 to 6.21] percentage points; P = .19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized trial, prompting academic medical oncologists with information about genomically matched therapeutic clinical trials for patients with tumor progression based on AI interpretation of imaging reports did not increase therapeutic trial enrollment. The findings suggest that future use of AI to optimize enrollment in cancer clinical trials should include tasks beyond predicting treatment change and/or populations beyond those whose tumors have undergone comprehensive genetic sequencing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06888089.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsAgedDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID40257799
PMCPMC12013351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.