MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Accrual of adolescents and young adults (AYA) into cancer clinical trials in Canada.

2023· article· en· W4379283617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mariam Jafri, Corey Willman, Alison Urton, Jan‐Willem Henning, Lesleigh S. Abbott, Kelly Davison, Mohamed Akra, Lesley Seymour, Janet Dancey, Annette E. Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaQueen's UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAccrualClinical trialCancerLung cancerInternal medicineGerontologyOncologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13598 Background: Historically, accrual rates of AYA (aged 16-39) to cancer clinical trials have been low. This is suggested to contribute to lesser improvements in their outcomes compared with older and younger populations. We sought to describe the impact of collaborative initiatives launched by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG), NCTN and C17 to address this. Methods: All CCTG trials open to accrual from 01/01/2004 to 31/12/2022 were evaluated. Trials with eligibility criteria limited to age > 39, or for which CCTG did not have access to individual patient data on age, were excluded. Accrual rates were assessed by age (<30, 30-39, >40 yrs), cancer type, and compared with 2022 Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) prevalence data. Results: 379 studies were open to accrual. 21 trials were excluded as they had no patients aged 16-39 within their inclusion criteria. 2 trials were excluded as they were either COVID related or a trial sub-study. 230 trials were excluded owing to patient age data being unavailable to CCTG. 126 CCTG and NCTN led trials were included. They involved the following disease sites: brain (3), breast (13), GI (12), GU (11), gynecology (6), head & neck (3), hematology (10), lung (11), melanoma (4), sarcoma (2) novel investigational agents (45) and symptom control (6) – the latter two spanned multiple tumor types. Patients aged 16-18 were excluded from many trials limiting accrual opportunities in this subgroup. AYA patients were recruited into trials at a higher level than expected by prevalence data except for brain, lung and head & neck patients. This may be due to younger, fitter patients being recruited onto trials. GU trials, hematology and sarcoma trials recruited better than expected as there were trials geared to diseases common in younger individuals (e.g. germ cell cancers) and incorporating intensive therapy e.g. stem cell transplantation in lymphoma. 3.5% of patients accrued on trials were <40 in 2004-2013 c.f. 8.7% of patients 2014-2022. Conclusions: Limited data is available on AYA aged 16-18 due to trial entry criteria. Currently, most CCTG trials include patients aged ≥14. Trial accrual in the AYA population was higher than predicted by CCS data indicating that clinical trials are acceptable to AYA patients. This supports ongoing efforts to improve trial access to AYA. [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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.276
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→