Open clinical trial data offer many opportunities for the scientific community to independently verify published results, evaluate new hypotheses and conduct meta-analyses. These data provide a springboard for scientific advances in precision medicine but the question arises as to how representative clinical trials data are of cancer patients overall. Here we present the integrative analysis of data from several cancer clinical trials and compare these to patient-level data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Comparison of cancer type-specific survival rates reveals that these are overall lower in trial subjects. This effect, at least to some extent, can be explained by the more advanced stages of cancer of trial subjects. This analysis also reveals that for stage IV cancer, colorectal cancer patients have a better chance of survival than breast cancer patients. On the other hand, for all other stages, breast cancer patients have better survival than colorectal cancer patients. Comparison of survival in different stages of disease between the two datasets reveals that subjects with stage IV cancer from the trials dataset have a lower chance of survival than matching stage IV subjects from TCGA. One likely explanation for this observation is that stage IV trial subjects have lower survival rates since their cancer is less likely to respond to treatment. To conclude, we present here a newly available clinical trials dataset which allowed for the integration of patient-level data from many cancer clinical trials. Our comprehensive analysis reveals that cancer-related clinical trials are not representative of general cancer patient populations, mostly due to their focus on the more advanced stages of the disease. These and other limitations of clinical trials data should, perhaps, be taken into consideration in medical research and in the field of precision medicine.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2017.
All research outputs
#9,466,406
of 34,559,526 outputs
Outputs from Biocomputing
#138
of 471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,572
of 440,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biocomputing
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,559,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 471 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
