Survival Benefit Associated With Participation in Clinical Trials of Anticancer Drugs

Author:

Iskander Renata1,Moyer Hannah2,Vigneault Karine1,Mahmud Salaheddin M.3,Kimmelman Jonathan1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

2. Department of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

3. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Abstract

ImportanceMany cancer clinical investigators view clinical trials as offering better care for patients than routine clinical care. However, definitive evidence of clinical benefit from trial participation (hereafter referred to as the participation effect) has yet to emerge.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence examining whether patient participation in cancer trials was associated with greater survival benefit compared with routine care.Data SourcesStudies were found through PubMed and Embase (January 1, 2000, until August 31, 2022), as well as backward and forward citation searching.Study SelectionStudies were included that compared overall survival of trial participants and routine care patients.Data Extraction and SynthesisData extraction and methodological quality assessment were completed by 2 independent coders using Covidence software. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and analyzed based on the quality of the comparison between trial participants and routine care patients (ie, extent to which studies controlled for bias and confounders).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival of trial participants vs routine care patients.ResultsThirty-nine publications were included, comprising 85 comparisons of trial participants and routine care patients. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant overall survival benefit for trial participants (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69-0.82]) when all studies were pooled, regardless of design or quality. However, survival benefits diminished in study subsets that matched trial participants and routine care patients for eligibility criteria (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.97]) and disappeared when only high-quality studies were pooled (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.80-1.05]). They also disappeared when estimates were adjusted for potential publication bias (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.86-1.03]).Conclusions and RelevanceMany studies suggest a survival benefit for cancer trial participants. However, these benefits were not detected in studies using designs addressing important sources of bias and confounding. Pooled results of high-quality studies are not consistent with a beneficial effect of trial participation on its own.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3