Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40602341›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)2025

Performance status eligibility requirements and enrollment characteristics in cancer clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration drugs approval (2009-2023).

Giovanni Maria Iannantuono, Charalampos S Floudas, Marco Filetti, Tommaso Giovagnoli, Stefano Sganga, Antonio Vitale, Elias Chandran, Pasquale Lombardi, Roberto Rosenfeld, Elena Giudice and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The correlation between pain and function in cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

18 authors.

Giovanni Maria IannantuonoPhase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Charalampos S FloudasCenter for Immuno-Oncology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Marco FilettiPhase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Tommaso GiovagnoliPhase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Stefano SgangaComprehensive Cancer Center, Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Antonio VitaleComprehensive Cancer Center, Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Elias ChandranGenitourinary Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Pasquale LombardiPhase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Roberto RosenfeldPrecision Medicine in Senology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Elena GiudiceDepartment of Woman, Child and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Elisabetta XueCenter for Immuno-Oncology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Elvira RapisardaInstitute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Paola TroisiComprehensive Cancer Center, Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Andrea B ApoloGenitourinary Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Fatima KarzaiGenitourinary Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Emilio BriaComprehensive Cancer Center, Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedale Isola Tiberina-Gemelli Isola, Rome, Italy.
James L GulleyCenter for Immuno-Oncology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Gennaro DanielePhase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: gennaro.daniele@policlinicogemelli.it.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipants with a low functional status are often excluded from cancer clinical trials, limiting the generalizability of their results. Here we aimed to investigate performance status (PS) eligibility requirements and enrollment characteristics in clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study on pivotal clinical trials for non-hematologic solid tumors leading to drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2009 to 2023. Participants with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS ≥ 2 were defined as having low functional status (i.e., poor PS).

resultsWe identified 283 clinical trials with 158,510 total participants. Four (1.4 %) studies did not use PS as an eligibility criterion. Of the remaining 279 trials, 72 (25.8 %) allowed the enrollment of poor-PS participants, with a negative trend over the 15-year interval (p = 0.01). The proportion of studies enrolling ECOG PS ≥ 2 participants was 43.2 % from 2009-2013, 29.6 % from 2014-2018, and 17.5 % from 2019-2023 (p = 0.002). Notably, early-phase studies included poor-PS participants more frequently than phase 3 clinical trials (40.8 % vs 20.2 %; p = 0.01). Finally, over the 15-year interval, the median (interquartile range) proportions of ECOG PS 0, 1, and 2 participants were 53.7 % (38.7 %-65.7 %), 45.1 % (33.5 %-58.8 %), and 4.3 % (1.8 %-7.9 %), respectively.

conclusionsA limited fraction of pivotal clinical trials included participants with poor PS, with a median percentage enrollment of less than 5 %. Sponsors, institutional review boards, and investigators must collaborate to broaden PS eligibility criteria to achieve more representative trial populations.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicDrug ApprovalEligibility DeterminationNeoplasmsPatient SelectionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntineoplastic AgentsClinical trialEligibility criteriaPerformance statusSolid tumor

Identifiers

PMID40602341
PMCPMC12359999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.