SynthesisThe oncologist2025
Concordance in assessments between investigators and blinded independent central review (BICR) in hematology oncology clinical trials: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy of targeted hepatocellular carcinoma therapy using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and alpha-fetoprotein: A single center retrospective exploratory study.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBlinded independent central review (BICR) mitigates assessment bias in oncology trials but imposes significant operational burdens. Its value in hematologic malignancies-where multimodal response criteria reduce reliance on subjective imaging assessments compared to solid tumors-remains unestablished. This meta-analysis evaluates BICR-investigator concordance specifically in hematology trials.
methodsWe systematically identified Phase II/III hematology trials (2014-2024) reporting progression-free survival (PFS) and/or objective response rate (ORR) assessments by both investigators and BICR from PubMed. Agreement was quantified using Pearson/Spearman correlation, pooled hazard ratio ratio (HRR, HRINV/HRBICR) for PFS, and odds ratio ratio for ORR (OddsRR, ORINV/ORBICR). We also analyzed the odds ratio for ORR for single arms (OddsINV/OddsBICR). Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of masking, cancer type based on imaging dependence, and sample size.
resultsData from 70 studies (37 PFS comparisons; 23 ORR comparisons; 29 single-arm ORR) were analyzed. For PFS, the pooled HRR was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.03), with perfect agreement in statistical significance (Cohen's kappa = 1). For ORR, the pooled OddsRR was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.14). Single-arm trials showed minimal odds difference between assessors (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.17). Subgroup analyses (masking, cancer type, sample size) consistently showed high agreement.
conclusionsInvestigator and BICR assessments demonstrated substantial concordance in hematology trials. The common applications of BICR in registration trials provide minimal added value for primary endpoint validation in this setting. We recommend prioritizing investigator training and standardized criteria to optimize resource allocation.
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.