Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33563636›Full record

ReviewClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2021

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Laboratory Reference Ranges and Testing Intervals Work Group.

Alexander I Spira, Mark D Stewart, Suzanne Jones, Elaine Chang, Anitra Fielding, Nicole Richie, Laura S Wood, Michael A Thompson, Lee Jones, Abhilasha Nair and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Alexander I SpiraVirginia Cancer Specialists, US Oncology Research, Fairfax, Virginia. Alexander.Spira@USOncology.com.
Mark D StewartFriends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0002-4847-0736
Suzanne JonesSarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee.ORCID 0000-0001-6881-8050
Elaine ChangFDA, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-6255-2853
Anitra FieldingAstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Nicole RichieGenentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California.
Laura S WoodCleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Michael A ThompsonAurora Cancer Care, Advocate Aurora Health, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Lee JonesPatient and Research Advocate, Arlington, Virginia.ORCID 0000-0001-6881-8050
Abhilasha NairFDA, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Brandon A MahalMiller School of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
David E GerberHarold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-7812-6741

Funding

UT Southwestern NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) LAPS - Supplemental Funds YR4UG1CA233302 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI David Eric Gerber · 2019 to 2026
$6.4M
Development of New Cancer Treatments and InvestigatorsK24CA201543 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI GERBER, DAVID ERIC · 2016 to 2020
$737k
NCI NIH HHS K24 CA201543NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn clinical research, eligibility criteria promote patient safety and optimize the evidence generated from clinical trials. However, overly stringent eligibility criteria, including laboratory requirements, may limit enrollment, resulting in delayed trial completion and potentially limiting applicability of trial results to a general practice population. EXPERIMENTAL

designStarting in 2018, a working group consisting of experts in direct patient care, the FDA, industry, and patient advocacy developed recommendations to guide the optimal use of laboratory reference ranges and testing intervals in clinical trial eligibility criteria and study procedures. The working group evaluated current eligibility criteria across different clinical trial phases and performed a literature review to evaluate the impact of and justification for laboratory test eligibility requirements and testing intervals in clinical trials. Recommendations were developed on the basis of the goals of promoting safety and optimizing the evidence generated, while also expanding eligibility and applicability, and minimizing excess burden of trial participation.

resultsIn general, we found little variation over time and trial phase in laboratory test requirements, suggesting that these eligibility criteria are not refined according to ongoing clinical experience. We propose recommendations to optimize the use of laboratory tests when considering eligibility criteria.

conclusionsTailoring the use of laboratory test requirements and testing intervals may increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and provide clinical data that more closely represent the general practice populations.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Decision-MakingClinical Trials as TopicDisease ManagementHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID33563636
PMCPMC8102342

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.