SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Clinical significance and minimal clinically important differences for the survival outcomes in randomized clinical trials of lung cancer.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key considerations when assessing clinical utility for biomarker testing: A checklist.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Ketogenic Diet as an Adjuvant in Epithelial Cancers: Mechanisms, Model Systems, and Translational Opportunities.Cancers · 2026Review
- NCAPG reprograms glycolytic and lipid metabolism by sustaining glycerophospholipid flux in small-cell lung cancer.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the number of clinical trials on lung cancer is rapidly increasing, the clinical benefits have not received sufficient attention. This study aims to assess the clinical benefits and estimate the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) to provide quantitative guidance for treatment decisions and study design in lung cancer trials.
methodsThis study systematically searched lung cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The clinical benefits were estimated using the frameworks of the European Society for Medical Oncology - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology - Value Framework (ASCO-VF). The MCIDs for OS and PFS were calculated using the distribution-based method. The differences in clinical benefits of lung cancer trials between the MCIDs and the two frameworks were compared.
resultsA total of 319 lung cancer RCTs were included. The mean improved OS and PFS were 2.28 and 1.76 months between the interventional and control groups, respectively. Around 15.79% of trials with OS as the primary endpoint were rated as grades 4 or above, and only 6.02% of trials with PFS as the primary endpoint reached grade 4 by ESMO-MCBS. The overall MCIDs for OS and PFS in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were 7.66 and 3.11 months, while 2.29 and 1.13 months in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), respectively. A total of 79.61% of RCTs evaluating OS (5.92% with clinical benefits and 73.68% without clinical benefits) and 68.26% evaluating PFS (3.59% with clinical benefits and 64.67% without clinical benefits) were consistently identified as reaching clinical benefits by the MCIDs and two frameworks.
conclusionsAlthough lung cancer RCTs showed statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS, most trials did not show clinical benefits, with a limited increase in survival months. A fair-to-moderate consistency of clinical benefits classification was observed between the MCIDs and the two frameworks. Further explorations into MCID are anticipated to deepen our understanding and promote its application in the future.
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.