{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,7]],"date-time":"2026-01-07T23:28:58Z","timestamp":1767828538670,"version":"3.49.0"},"reference-count":11,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,1,1]],"date-time":"2019-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1546300800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,1,1]],"date-time":"2019-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1546300800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Oncology"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019]]},"abstract":"<b><i>Introduction:<\/i><\/b> The cancer research community increasingly question the rigidity of eligibility criteria in clinical trials. Common reasons for \u201cscreen failure\u201d (RFSF) are well documented; however, their effect on subsequent standard therapy (SST) and outcomes is unclear. <b><i>Methods:<\/i><\/b> This retrospective study evaluated patients aged \u226518 years with solid malignancy who were listed as ineligible on a screening log between February 2011 and March 2018. Patients screen-failed for biomarker results or incorrect cancer stage\/prior treatment profile were excluded. Data were collected from electronic hospital records, including demographics, cancer history, RFSF, subsequent therapy, and outcomes. <b><i>Results:<\/i><\/b> Overall, 217 patients were eligible. The most common histologies were lung (28%), melanoma, colon, and pancreatic (all 11%); 90% were metastatic. The most common RFSF were rapid disease progression (PD; 16%), performance status (PS) \u22652 (12%), and abnormal liver function tests (aLFT; 12%). After screen failure, 129\/217 (59%) had SST; 9 were dose-reduced. Treatment-na\u00efve or phase III trial-ineligible patients were more likely to receive SST than those pre-treated or phase I trial-ineligible (72\/104 vs. 52\/113, <i>p<\/i> = 0.0006; 71\/109 vs. 15\/42, <i>p<\/i> = 0.00013), respectively. RFSF stabilised\/improved in 104\/217 (48%); the main RFSF was co-morbidity (19\/104). The most common RFSF to deteriorate were rapid PD (27\/72), PS \u22652 (20\/72), and aLFT with liver metastases (LM; 13\/72). <b><i>Conclusions:<\/i><\/b> RFSF related to organ function rarely deteriorate unless directly involved with underlying malignancy. Most RFSF do not prevent patients from having SST, nor increase dose reductions, especially in treatment-na\u00efve\/phase III trial-ineligible patients. Those with RFSF of poor PS, rapid PD, and aLFT from LM are less suitable for SST. Careful broadening of trial eligibility is warranted.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/000501211","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,7,2]],"date-time":"2019-07-02T21:00:38Z","timestamp":1562101238000},"page":"270-276","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Effect of Reasons for Screen Failure on Subsequent Treatment Outcomes in Cancer Patients Assessed for Clinical Trials"],"prefix":"10.1159","volume":"97","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0515-6130","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Crescens","family":"Tiu","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Zoe","family":"Loh","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Chun\u00a0Loo","family":"Gan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Hui","family":"Gan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Thomas","family":"John","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Eliza","family":"Hawkes","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,7,2]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ctrv.2015.12.006"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2017.73.4186"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2017.73.7916"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2017.74.4102"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JOP.2014.001457"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/ajco.12867"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/ajco.12702"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s12032-018-1194-4"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(16)30053-5"},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1158\/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(17)30693-9"}],"container-title":["Oncology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/501211","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/501211","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,23]],"date-time":"2025-04-23T16:46:02Z","timestamp":1745426762000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/000501211"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019]]},"references-count":11,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,11,6]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,11,12]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000501211","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0030-2414","1423-0232"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0030-2414","type":"print"},{"value":"1423-0232","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2019]]}}}