Evolution of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) in oncology over three decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6515 Background: The RCT is the gold standard for establishing new therapies in oncology. Here we document changes with time in design, results, author conclusions and sponsorship. Methods: Reports of RCTs evaluating systemic therapy for breast, colorectal (CRC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published 1975–2004 in 6 major journals were reviewed. Two authors independently abstracted data regarding trial design, effect size and author conclusions. Author conclusions were assigned a score from 1 to 7: 4/7 for a neutral statement, 7/7 and 1/7 for strong endorsement of experimental and control arm respectively. For each study the effect size for the primary endpoint was converted to a summary measure: hazard ratio [HR] for survival endpoints and relative risk [RR] for response rate. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze trends over time. Results: 326 eligible RCTs were included (48% breast, 24% CRC, 28% NSCLC). There was a significant increase in the number and size of RCTs (see Table ). Median rate of accrual increased from 7 patients/month in 1975–84 to 14 patients/month in 1995–2004 (p<0.001). There was an increase in multicenter (55 to 95%, p<0.001), international trials (26 to 52%, p<0.001) and for-profit sponsorship over time (6 to 57%, p<0.001). There was increasing use of survival (13 to 48%,) and decreasing use of response rate (32 to 14%) as primary endpoint (p<0.001). Authors have become more likely to strongly endorse the experimental arm despite no change in effect size over time (p=0.005). Studies sponsored by for-profit organizations were more likely to strongly endorse the experimental agent than studies not sponsored by for-profit groups (median author score 6/7 vs. 4/7, p<0.001). Conclusions: RCTs in oncology have become more common, larger, and are more likely to be sponsored by industry. Authors of modern RCTs are more likely to strongly endorse novel therapies despite no increase in the relative benefit of interventions. For-profit sponsorship is associated with stronger endorsement of the experimental arm. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.712 | 0.790 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".