Abstract:Importance: The burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden. Objectives: To describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings. Design, setting, and participants: In this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020. Main outcomes and measures: Differences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs. Results: The study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P < .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P < .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P < .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P < .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.

Network analysis of cross-income-level collaboration on non-communicable disease: the example of multiple myeloma in Sub-Saharan Africa

Mapping the Global Research Landscape and Knowledge Gaps on Multimorbidity: A Bibliometric Study

International Scientific Collaboration in HIV and HPV: A Network Analysis

Factors influencing the research impact in cancer research: a collaboration and knowledge network analysis

Social Network Analysis of Biomedical Research Collaboration Networks in a CTSA Institution

The Global Research Collaboration of Network Meta-Analysis: A Social Network Analysis.

UK Cancer Healthcare Professionals Collaborating With Colleagues in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Mapping the Extent and Nature of Partnerships; Future Implications

Understanding Biomedicai Research Collaborations Through Social Network Analysis: A Case Study.

Co-authorship Network Analysis: A Powerful Tool for Strategic Planning of Research, Development and Capacity Building Programs on Neglected Diseases

The future of collaborative precision oncology approaches in sub-Saharan Africa: learnings from around the globe

Impact of a digital education platform to combat global inequity in oncology education amongst healthcare professionals in lower socioeconomic areas.

Cancer control collaborations between China and African countries

A Network Analysis of Multiple Myeloma Related Gene Signatures.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants in LMICs

An analysis of policy and funding priorities of global actors regarding noncommunicable disease in low- and middle-income countries

Leveraging a matrix of stakeholders to facilitate access to chemotherapy for women's cancers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Unveiling mitochondrial and ribosomal gene deregulation and tumor microenvironment dynamics in acute myeloid leukemia

Cases of Patients Treated in Countries With Limited Resources and Discussed by Experts of the International CML Foundation (iCMLf)-Case No. 1: A Boy Presenting With Priapism and Loss of Vision

Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis

An Analysis of Contemporary Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials From Low/Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries

Mitigating machine learning bias between high income and low–middle income countries for enhanced model fairness and generalizability