Determinants of enrollment in cancer clinical trials: the relationship between the current state of knowledge, societal disease burden, and randomized clinical trial enrollment.

IF 16.4 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Pub Date : 2013-08-01 DOI:10.6004/jnccn.2013.0114
Shane Lloyd, Daniela L Buscariollo, Cary P Gross, Danil V Makarov, James B Yu
{"title":"Determinants of enrollment in cancer clinical trials: the relationship between the current state of knowledge, societal disease burden, and randomized clinical trial enrollment.","authors":"Shane Lloyd,&nbsp;Daniela L Buscariollo,&nbsp;Cary P Gross,&nbsp;Danil V Makarov,&nbsp;James B Yu","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2013.0114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whether clinical cancer research currently focuses on gaps in the evidentiary basis for clinical guidelines and/or on cancers that impose greater societal burden is unclear. This study assessed the relationship between cancer research efforts in terms of planned randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrollment, objective measures of evidence quality, and a cancer's burden on society. The authors calculated the planned RCT enrollment listed on ClinicalTrials.gov for the 17 most prevalent solid cancers. Using cancer type as the unit of analysis, linear regression was used to examine the association between planned enrollment in RCTs and 1) evidence quality, as measured by the absolute number and percent of highest quality category (category 1 [C1]) recommendations in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for each cancer, and 2) measures of burden on society, including prevalence, incidence, person-years of life lost (PYLL), and disability-adjusted life years (DALY). Non-normal distributions were log transformed when appropriate. Overall, 15% of the NCCN recommendations were based on the highest quality evidence. Results produced 1260 RCTs. Planned RCT enrollment ranged from 2270 (testis) to 492,876 (breast) and was correlated neither with absolute number nor percent of C1 recommendations for that cancer. Planned RCT enrollment was positively correlated with a cancer's prevalence (P=.01), incidence (P<.01), PYLL (P<.01), and DALY (P<0.01). In multivariate analysis, prevalence (P<.01) and PYLL (P<.01) had the strongest association with planned RCT enrollment. Findings showed, therefore, that planned cancer RCT enrollment is associated with higher societal disease burden, not the quality of a cancer's clinical guidelines. </p>","PeriodicalId":17483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","volume":"11 8","pages":"928-36"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.6004/jnccn.2013.0114","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2013.0114","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Whether clinical cancer research currently focuses on gaps in the evidentiary basis for clinical guidelines and/or on cancers that impose greater societal burden is unclear. This study assessed the relationship between cancer research efforts in terms of planned randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrollment, objective measures of evidence quality, and a cancer's burden on society. The authors calculated the planned RCT enrollment listed on ClinicalTrials.gov for the 17 most prevalent solid cancers. Using cancer type as the unit of analysis, linear regression was used to examine the association between planned enrollment in RCTs and 1) evidence quality, as measured by the absolute number and percent of highest quality category (category 1 [C1]) recommendations in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for each cancer, and 2) measures of burden on society, including prevalence, incidence, person-years of life lost (PYLL), and disability-adjusted life years (DALY). Non-normal distributions were log transformed when appropriate. Overall, 15% of the NCCN recommendations were based on the highest quality evidence. Results produced 1260 RCTs. Planned RCT enrollment ranged from 2270 (testis) to 492,876 (breast) and was correlated neither with absolute number nor percent of C1 recommendations for that cancer. Planned RCT enrollment was positively correlated with a cancer's prevalence (P=.01), incidence (P<.01), PYLL (P<.01), and DALY (P<0.01). In multivariate analysis, prevalence (P<.01) and PYLL (P<.01) had the strongest association with planned RCT enrollment. Findings showed, therefore, that planned cancer RCT enrollment is associated with higher societal disease burden, not the quality of a cancer's clinical guidelines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
癌症临床试验入组的决定因素:知识现状、社会疾病负担和随机临床试验入组之间的关系
目前尚不清楚临床癌症研究是否侧重于临床指南证据基础的空白和/或施加更大社会负担的癌症。本研究从计划随机对照试验(RCT)入组、证据质量的客观衡量标准和癌症给社会带来的负担等方面评估了癌症研究努力之间的关系。作者计算了ClinicalTrials.gov网站上列出的17种最普遍的实体癌症的计划RCT入组。以癌症类型为分析单位,采用线性回归来检验随机对照试验计划入组与以下因素之间的关系:1)证据质量,以NCCN肿瘤学临床实践指南中每种癌症的最高质量类别(1类[C1])建议的绝对数量和百分比来衡量;2)社会负担测量,包括患病率、发病率、人-生命年损失(PYLL)和残疾调整生命年(DALY)。在适当的时候对非正态分布进行对数变换。总的来说,15%的NCCN建议是基于最高质量的证据。结果产生了1260个随机对照试验。计划纳入的随机对照试验从2270例(睾丸)到492876例(乳腺癌)不等,与C1推荐的绝对数量和百分比无关。计划RCT入组与癌症患病率(P= 0.01)、发病率(P= 0.01)呈正相关
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
388
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is a peer-reviewed medical journal read by over 25,000 oncologists and cancer care professionals nationwide. This indexed publication delivers the latest insights into best clinical practices, oncology health services research, and translational medicine. Notably, JNCCN provides updates on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology® (NCCN Guidelines®), review articles elaborating on guideline recommendations, health services research, and case reports that spotlight molecular insights in patient care. Guided by its vision, JNCCN seeks to advance the mission of NCCN by serving as the primary resource for information on NCCN Guidelines®, innovation in translational medicine, and scientific studies related to oncology health services research. This encompasses quality care and value, bioethics, comparative and cost effectiveness, public policy, and interventional research on supportive care and survivorship. JNCCN boasts indexing by prominent databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Chemical Abstracts, Embase, EmCare, and Scopus, reinforcing its standing as a reputable source for comprehensive information in the field of oncology.
期刊最新文献
How Healthy Are the Diets of Cancer Survivors? Characteristics of Those Most at Risk and Opportunities for Improvement. Assessing the Performance of the PREDICT Breast Version 3.0 Prognostic Tool in Patients With Breast Cancer in the United States. A Case of Cryptic CBFB::MYH11 Acute Myeloid Leukemia With Noncanonical Breakpoints Detected by Optical Genome Mapping. Authors' Reply to the Letter to the Editor by Kim et al: Are We Asking the Right Question for New Biomarkers - "Ready for Prime Time" Versus Demonstrated Clinical Utility? Letter to the Editor: Are We Asking the Right Question for New Biomarkers - "Ready for Prime Time" Versus Demonstrated Clinical Utility?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1