RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Seven Decades of Chemotherapy Clinical Trials: A Pan-Cancer Social Network Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 19010603
DO 10.1101/19010603
A1 Xuanyi Li
A1 Elizabeth A. Sigworth
A1 Adrianne H. Wu
A1 Jess Behrens
A1 Shervin A. Etemad
A1 Seema Nagpal
A1 Ronald S. Go
A1 Kristin Wuichet
A1 Eddy J. Chen
A1 Samuel M. Rubinstein
A1 Neeta K. Venepalli
A1 Benjamin F. Tillman
A1 Andrew J. Cowan
A1 Martin W. Schoen
A1 Andrew Malty
A1 John P. Greer
A1 Hermina D. Fernandes
A1 Ari Seifter
A1 Qingxia Chen
A1 Rozina A. Chowdhery
A1 Sanjay R. Mohan
A1 Summer B. Dewdney
A1 Travis Osterman
A1 Edward P. Ambinder
A1 Elizabeth I. Buchbinder
A1 Candice Schwartz
A1 Ivy Abraham
A1 Matthew J. Rioth
A1 Naina Singh
A1 Sanjai Sharma
A1 Michael Gibson
A1 Peter C. Yang
A1 Jeremy L. Warner
YR 2019
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/02/19010603.abstract
AB Background Clinical trials establish the standard of care for cancer and other diseases. While social network analysis has been applied to basic sciences, the social component of clinical trial research is not well characterized. We examined the social network of cancer clinical trialists and its dynamic development over more than 70 years, including the roles of subspecialization and gender in relation to traditional and network-based metrics of productivity.Methods We conducted a social network analysis of authors publishing chemotherapy-based prospective trials from 1946-2018, based on the curated knowledge base HemOnc.org, examining: 1) network density; 2) modularity; 3) assortativity; 4) betweenness centrality; 5) PageRank; and 6) the proportion of co-authors sharing the same primary cancer subspecialty designation. Individual author impact and productive period were analyzed as a function of gender and subspecialty.Findings From 1946-2018, the network grew to 29,197 authors and 697,084 co-authors. While 99.4% of authors were directly or indirectly connected as of 2018, the network had very few connections and was very siloed by cancer subspecialty. Small numbers of individuals were highly connected and had disproportionate impact (scale-free effects). Women were under-represented and likelier to have lower impact, shorter productive periods (P<0.001 for both comparisons), less centrality, and a greater proportion of co-authors in their same subspecialty. The past 30 years were characterized by a trend towards increased authorship by women, with new author parity anticipated in 2032. However, women remain a distinct minority of first/last authors, with parity not anticipated for 50+ years.Interpretation The network of cancer clinical trialists is best characterized as a strategic or “mixed-motive” network, with cooperative and competitive elements influencing its appearance.Network effects e.g., low centrality, which may limit access to high-profile individuals, likely contribute to ongoing disparities.Funding Vanderbilt Initiative for Interdisciplinary Research; National Institutes of Health; National Science FoundationEvidence before this study We reviewed the literature on social networks from the 1800’s to 2018. Additionally, MEDLINE was searched for (“Social Networking”[Mesh] OR “Social Network Analysis”) AND (“Clinical Trials as Topic”[Mesh] OR “Hematology”[Mesh] OR “Medical Oncology”[Mesh]) without date restriction. The MEDLINE search yielded 43 results, of which 8 were relevant; none considered gender nor temporality in their analyses. To our knowledge, there has not been any similar study of the dynamic social network of clinical trialists from the inception of the fields of medical oncology and hematology to the present.Added value of this study This is the first dynamic social network analysis of cancer clinical trialists. We found that the network was sparse and siloed with a small number of authors having disproportionate impact and influence as measured by network metrics such as PageRank; these metrics have become more disproportionate over time. Women were under-represented and likelier to have lower impact, shorter productive periods, less network centrality, and a greater proportion of co-authors in their same cancer subspecialty.Implications of all the available evidence While gender disparities have been demonstrated in many fields including hematology/oncology, our analysis is the first to show that network factors themselves are significantly implicated in gender disparity. The increasing coalescence of the network by traditional cancer type and around a small number of high-impact individuals implies challenges when the field pivots from traditionally disease-oriented subspecialties to a precision oncology paradigm. New mechanisms are needed to ensure diversity of clinical trialists.Competing Interest StatementWe declare the following interests: P.C.Y. is Editor-in-Chief of HemOnc.org and co-founder of HemOnc.org LLC and owns stock of HemOnc.org LLC; J.L.W. is Deputy Editor of HemOnc.org and co-founder of HemOnc.org LLC and owns stock of HemOnc.org LLC; and S.N, R.S.G., E.J.C., S.M.R., N.K.V, B.F.T., A.J.C., M.W.S., H.D.F., A.S., R.A.C., S.R.M., S.B.D., T.J.O., E.I.B., C.S., I.A., M.J.R., N.S., S.S., and M.G. are members of the editorial board of HemOnc.org. All positions at HemOnc.org are voluntary and uncompensated, and the stock of HemOnc.org LLC has no monetary value; the authors declare that there are no financial conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Vanderbilt Initiative for Interdisciplinary Research (J.B.); NIH grants P30 CA068485 (J.L.W.), T32 CA009515 (A.J.C.), T32 HG008341 (S.M.R.), U01 CA231840 (K.W. and J.L.W.), U24 CA194215 (E.A.S. and Q.C.); and NSF grant #1757644 (A.H.W.). None of the funders had any direct role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDisambiguated author names and names mapped to gender are available as supplemental files. Algorithms are available upon request.