Does Cancer Literature Reflect Multidisciplinary Practice? A Systematic Review of Oncology Studies in the Medical Literature Over a 20-Year Period

Randomized controlled trials and alternative study designs in surgical oncology

Surgery is central to the cure of most solid cancers and an integral part of modern multimodal cancer management for early and advanced stage cancers. Decisions made by surgeons and multidisciplinary team members are based on best available knowledge for the defined clinical situation at hand. While surgery is both an art and a science, good decision-making requires data that are robust, valid, representative and, applicable to most if not all patients with a specific cancer. Such data largely comes from clinical observations and registries, and more preferably from trials conducted with the specific purpose of arriving at new answers. As part of the ESSO core curriculum development an increased focus has been put on the need to enhance research literacy among surgical candidates. As an expansion of the curriculum catalogue list and to enhance the educational value, we here present a set of principles and emerging concepts which applies to surgical oncologist for reading, understanding, planning and contributing to future surgeon-led cancer trials.

Analyzing factors associated with clinical trial publication in radiation oncology

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard of clinical research and are sought in the medical literature for the goal of providing quality care. To identify factors associated with successful or unsuccessful publication of clinical trials in radiation oncology, data on trial characteristics were collected from the National Institutes of Health database on clinicaltrials.gov. To assess studies that had adequate time to accrue, trials between 2000 and 2005 were extracted by filtering for “radiation oncology”. Studies were excluded if they were incomplete, observational, Phase 4, or lacked sufficient method descriptions. Included studies underwent independent samples t-tests and Pearson Chi-Square bivariate analyses. 538 studies were candidates for analysis of clinical trial characteristics. United States (US) origin, multi-center sites, government funding, Phase III status, and randomized allocation were factors associated with increased publication rate. The number of study arms, study length, and number of participants were significantly greater in published trials. The review's results demonstrate potential barriers or facilitators to publication, and they suggest that publication status may be influenced by geographic, financial, and temporal characteristics of clinical trials. Understanding trial background factors that may impact publication improve data visibility and clinical advancements for all.

Analysis of the 2017 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Research Portfolio

PURPOSE

Research in radiation oncology (RO) is imperative to support the discovery of new uses of radiation and improvement of current approaches to radiation delivery and to foster the continued evolution of our field. Therefore, in 2016, the American Society of Radiation Oncology performed an evaluation of research grant funding for RO.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Members of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP) were asked about funded and unfunded grants that were submitted by their departments between the fiscal years 2014 and 2016. Grants were grouped according to broad categories defined by the 2017 American Society of Radiation Oncology Research Agenda. Additionally, active grants in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database were collated using RO faculty names.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 816 funded (44%) and 1031 unfunded (56%) SCAROP-reported grants. Total grant funding was over $196 million. The US government funded the plurality (42.2%; 345 of 816) of grants compared with nonprofit and industry funders. Investigators from 10 institutions accounted for >75% of funded grants. Of the funded grants, 43.5% were categorized as "genomic influences and targeted therapies." The proportion of funded to unfunded grants was highest within the category of "tumor microenvironment, normal tissue effects, and reducing toxicity" (53.4% funded). "New clinical trial design and big data" had the smallest share of SCAROP grant applications and the lowest percent funded (38.3% of grants). NIH grants to RO researchers in 2014 to 2016 accounted for $85 million in funding. From the 31 responding SCAROP institutions, there was a 28% average success rate for RO proposals submitted to the NIH during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

Though RO researchers from responding institutions were relatively successful in obtaining funding, the overall amount awarded remains small. Continued advocacy on behalf of RO is needed, as well as investment to make research careers more attractive areas for emerging faculty.

A bibliometric analysis of natural language processing in medical research

Background

Natural language processing (NLP) has become an increasingly significant role in advancing medicine. Rich research achievements of NLP methods and applications for medical information processing are available. It is of great significance to conduct a deep analysis to understand the recent development of NLP-empowered medical research field. However, limited study examining the research status of this field could be found. Therefore, this study aims to quantitatively assess the academic output of NLP in medical research field.

Methods

We conducted a bibliometric analysis on NLP-empowered medical research publications retrieved from PubMed in the period 2007–2016. The analysis focused on three aspects. Firstly, the literature distribution characteristics were obtained with a statistics analysis method. Secondly, a network analysis method was used to reveal scientific collaboration relations. Finally, thematic discovery and evolution was reflected using an affinity propagation clustering method.

Results

There were 1405 NLP-empowered medical research publications published during the 10 years with an average annual growth rate of 18.39%. 10 most productive publication sources together contributed more than 50% of the total publications. The USA had the highest number of publications. A moderately significant correlation between country’s publications and GDP per capita was revealed. Denny, Joshua C was the most productive author. Mayo Clinic was the most productive affiliation. The annual co-affiliation and co-country rates reached 64.04% and 15.79% in 2016, respectively. 10 main great thematic areas were identified including Computational biology, Terminology mining, Information extraction, Text classification, Social medium as data source, Information retrieval, etc.

Conclusions

A bibliometric analysis of NLP-empowered medical research publications for uncovering the recent research status is presented. The results can assist relevant researchers, especially newcomers in understanding the research development systematically, seeking scientific cooperation partners, optimizing research topic choices and monitoring new scientific or technological activities.

Successful strategies in implementing a multidisciplinary team working in the care of patients with cancer: an overview and synthesis of the available literature

In many health care systems globally, cancer care is driven by multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs). A large number of studies in the past few years and across different literature have been performed to better understand how these teams work and how they manage patient care. The aim of our literature review is to synthesize current scientific and clinical understanding on cancer MDTs and their organization; this, in turn, should provide an up-to-date summary of the current knowledge that those planning or leading cancer services can use as a guide for service implementation or improvement. We describe the characteristics of an effective MDT and factors that influence how these teams work. A range of factors pertaining to teamwork, availability of patient information, leadership, team and meeting management, and workload can affect how well MDTs are implemented within patient care. We also review how to assess and improve these teams. We present a range of instruments designed to be used with cancer MDTs - including observational tools, self-assessments, and checklists. We conclude with a practical outline of what appears to be the best practices to implement (Dos) and practices to avoid (Don'ts) when setting up MDT-driven cancer care.

Cancer Cell Death-Inducing Radiotherapy: Impact on Local Tumour Control, Tumour Cell Proliferation and Induction of Systemic Anti-tumour Immunity

Radiotherapy (RT) predominantly is aimed to induce DNA damage in tumour cells that results in reduction of their clonogenicity and finally in tumour cell death. Adaptation of RT with higher single doses has become necessary and led to a more detailed view on what kind of tumour cell death is induced and which immunological consequences result from it. RT is capable of rendering tumour cells immunogenic by modifying the tumour cell phenotype and the microenvironment. Danger signals are released as well as the senescence-associated secretory phenotype. This results in maturation of dendritic cells and priming of cytotoxic T cells as well as in activation of natural killer cells. However, RT on the other hand can also result in immune suppressive events including apoptosis induction and foster tumour cell proliferation. That's why RT is nowadays increasingly combined with selected immunotherapies.

Trends in Disclosures of Industry Sponsorship

PURPOSE

To examine trends in the reporting of industry funding of oncology trials by primary therapeutic intervention studied: local, targeted, or nontargeted systemic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed oncologic trials published in 10 journals for the years 1994, 2004, and 2014 to determine the frequency of declarations of industry funding for cancer research. Logistic modeling was used to assess associations between reported industry funding and investigation characteristics, such as type of primary intervention, cancer site, study endpoint, number of participants, geographic location of corresponding author, journal impact factor, trial phase, and year of publication.

RESULTS

Reporting of industry funding increased over time (odds ratio [OR] 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.82-12.35). Compared with systemic trials, those investigating local therapies were less likely to report industry funding (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.14-0.15), whereas studies examining targeted interventions were more likely to report industry funding (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.38-3.66). Studies investigating gynecologic (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.88) and pediatric cancers (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.27) were less likely to report funding by industry when compared with hematologic cancers. Phase 2 (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.52) and phase 3 (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.37) studies were less likely to report industry funding than phase 1 studies. Trials investigating interventions for metastatic disease (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.73-3.79) were more likely to have reported industry funding compared with studies examining the primary/definitive disease setting.

CONCLUSION

Industry funding was reported in more than one-third of oncology trials examined in this study, and the proportion of trials reporting industry funding increased over time. The potential ramifications for these patterns of funding for the future direction of cancer research should be examined, especially given the disproportionate distribution of industry funding among therapeutic intentions, cancer types, and treatment modalities.