Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer , Omar Abdihamid , Christopher M. Booth , Nathan Cherny , Antonio T. Fojo , Bishal Gyawali , Bernard L. Marini , Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin , Madeline Pe , Gregory R. Pond , Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis , Ian F. Tannock , Dario Trapani , Michelle Tregear , Winette T.A. van der Graaf , Brooke E. Wilson
{"title":"Guidance for discussants of randomized cancer trials at major meetings","authors":"Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer , Omar Abdihamid , Christopher M. Booth , Nathan Cherny , Antonio T. Fojo , Bishal Gyawali , Bernard L. Marini , Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin , Madeline Pe , Gregory R. Pond , Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis , Ian F. Tannock , Dario Trapani , Michelle Tregear , Winette T.A. van der Graaf , Brooke E. Wilson","doi":"10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Discussants of potentially practice-changing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) at major cancer meetings have an important responsibility to place new research in the context of current cancer care, to assess the generalizability of the data, to evaluate whether the outcomes are meaningful to patients, and to convey this information effectively and objectively to a diverse audience. Without a standard approach to critiquing clinical trial design or results discussants may overlook key weaknesses in their commentary.</div></div><div><h3>Common Sense Oncology (CSO)</h3><div>The CSO initiative was launched in 2023 and is now comprised of an international collective of > 1000 clinicians, academics, policymakers, and patients. Its primary vision is that patients should have access to cancer treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes, irrespective of where they live. To do this, one focus is to try to improve evidence generation and reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Guidance for discussants</h3><div>As part of this work, the CSO RCT Working Group has identified key elements for use in the development of discussant presentations to facilitate a balanced high-quality examination of RCTs. Elements include assessment of: a<em>) Study design</em>: evaluation of the study question, selection of population and control arm, use of blinding, choice of primary and secondary endpoints; b) <em>Study results</em>: treatment delivery, use of crossover, impact of censoring, unplanned analyses, patient reported outcomes, adverse effects; and c<em>) Conclusions:</em> Appraise the value and generalizability of trial results and, when positive results are claimed, assess if they offer meaningful benefits over current standard(s) of care in outcomes of importance to patients.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11980,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Cancer","volume":"220 ","pages":"Article 115357"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804925001388","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Discussants of potentially practice-changing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) at major cancer meetings have an important responsibility to place new research in the context of current cancer care, to assess the generalizability of the data, to evaluate whether the outcomes are meaningful to patients, and to convey this information effectively and objectively to a diverse audience. Without a standard approach to critiquing clinical trial design or results discussants may overlook key weaknesses in their commentary.
Common Sense Oncology (CSO)
The CSO initiative was launched in 2023 and is now comprised of an international collective of > 1000 clinicians, academics, policymakers, and patients. Its primary vision is that patients should have access to cancer treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes, irrespective of where they live. To do this, one focus is to try to improve evidence generation and reporting.
Guidance for discussants
As part of this work, the CSO RCT Working Group has identified key elements for use in the development of discussant presentations to facilitate a balanced high-quality examination of RCTs. Elements include assessment of: a) Study design: evaluation of the study question, selection of population and control arm, use of blinding, choice of primary and secondary endpoints; b) Study results: treatment delivery, use of crossover, impact of censoring, unplanned analyses, patient reported outcomes, adverse effects; and c) Conclusions: Appraise the value and generalizability of trial results and, when positive results are claimed, assess if they offer meaningful benefits over current standard(s) of care in outcomes of importance to patients.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Cancer (EJC) serves as a comprehensive platform integrating preclinical, digital, translational, and clinical research across the spectrum of cancer. From epidemiology, carcinogenesis, and biology to groundbreaking innovations in cancer treatment and patient care, the journal covers a wide array of topics. We publish original research, reviews, previews, editorial comments, and correspondence, fostering dialogue and advancement in the fight against cancer. Join us in our mission to drive progress and improve outcomes in cancer research and patient care.