BACKGROUND: The evaluation of research output, such as estimation of the proportion of treatment successes, is of ethical, scientific, and public importance but has rarely been evaluated systematically. We assessed how often experimental cancer treatments that undergo testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) result in discovery of successful new interventions. METHODS: We extracted data from all completed (published and unpublished) phase 3 RCTs conducted by the National Cancer Institute cooperative groups since their inception in 1955. Therapeutic successes were determined by (1) assessing the proportion of statistically significant trials favoring new or standard treatments, (2) determining the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior to standard treatments according to the original researchers, and (3) quantitatively synthesizing data for main clinical outcomes (overall and event-free survival). RESULTS: Data from 624 trials (781 randomized comparisons) involving 216 451 patients were analyzed. In all, 30% of trials had statistically significant results, of which new interventions were superior to established treatments in 80% of trials. The original researchers judged that the risk-benefit profile favored new treatments in 41% of comparisons (316 of 766). Hazard ratios for overall and event-free survival, available for 614 comparisons, were 0.95 (99% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98) and 0.90 (99% CI, 0.87- 0.93), respectively, slightly favoring new treatments. Breakthrough interventions were discovered in 15% of trials. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 25% to 50% of new cancer treatments that reach the stage of assessment in RCTs will prove successful. The pattern of successes has become more stable over time. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the ethical principle of equipoise defines limits of discoverability in clinical research and ultimately drives therapeutic advances in clinical medicine.
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of research output, such as estimation of the proportion of treatment successes, is of ethical, scientific, and public importance but has rarely been evaluated systematically. We assessed how often experimental cancer treatments that undergo testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) result in discovery of successful new interventions. METHODS: We extracted data from all completed (published and unpublished) phase 3 RCTs conducted by the National Cancer Institute cooperative groups since their inception in 1955. Therapeutic successes were determined by (1) assessing the proportion of statistically significant trials favoring new or standard treatments, (2) determining the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior to standard treatments according to the original researchers, and (3) quantitatively synthesizing data for main clinical outcomes (overall and event-free survival). RESULTS: Data from 624 trials (781 randomized comparisons) involving 216 451 patients were analyzed. In all, 30% of trials had statistically significant results, of which new interventions were superior to established treatments in 80% of trials. The original researchers judged that the risk-benefit profile favored new treatments in 41% of comparisons (316 of 766). Hazard ratios for overall and event-free survival, available for 614 comparisons, were 0.95 (99% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98) and 0.90 (99% CI, 0.87- 0.93), respectively, slightly favoring new treatments. Breakthrough interventions were discovered in 15% of trials. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 25% to 50% of new cancer treatments that reach the stage of assessment in RCTs will prove successful. The pattern of successes has become more stable over time. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the ethical principle of equipoise defines limits of discoverability in clinical research and ultimately drives therapeutic advances in clinical medicine.
Authors: D G Altman; K F Schulz; D Moher; M Egger; F Davidoff; D Elbourne; P C Gøtzsche; T Lang Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-04-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: B Djulbegovic; M Lacevic; A Cantor; K K Fields; C L Bennett; J R Adams; N M Kuderer; G H Lyman Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-08-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David D Kim; Gregory F Guzauskas; Caroline S Bennette; Anirban Basu; David L Veenstra; Scott D Ramsey; Josh J Carlson Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: George Rust; David Satcher; George Edgar Fryer; Robert S Levine; Daniel S Blumenthal Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Caroline S Bennette; David L Veenstra; Anirban Basu; Laurence H Baker; Scott D Ramsey; Josh J Carlson Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jennifer A Wenzel; Olive Mbah; Jiayun Xu; Gyasi Moscou-Jackson; Haneefa Saleem; Kwame Sakyi; Jean G Ford Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2015-06
Authors: Christopher M Booth; David W Cescon; Lisa Wang; Ian F Tannock; Monika K Krzyzanowska Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-27 Impact factor: 44.544