Re‐inventing the randomized controlled trial in medical oncology: The registry‐based trial
Abstract
Substantial progress has recently been made in optimizing the management of cancer patients, resulting in major gains in survival and quality of life. Much of this progress has resulted from the serial testing of promising treatment strategies, typically using prospective randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes achieved with the new approach versus the current standard(s) of care. However, there is an ever‐expanding list of important questions that are difficult to investigate, particularly with respect to determining the optimal sequencing and combination of proven active agents. With the rapidly growing list of clinical, pathologic and molecular characteristics that promise to predict treatment benefit and/or risk for defined patient subsets, many new questions regarding how best to personalize our approach to treatment selection are emerging. These questions can be investigated in the context of registry‐based randomized clinical trials. Recently, the potential of registry‐based randomized clinical trials was demonstrated in cardiology, highlighting the ability to rapidly recruit large numbers of patients to a trial addressing an important clinical question, with minimal cost and high external validity. In this review, we discuss the challenges and limitations of conventional clinical trials in multidisciplinary cancer care, describe the potential advantages of registry‐based randomized trials, and highlight several registry‐based oncology studies that are already underway to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RBCTs combine traditional clinical trial methodology with the advantages of registry systems to gain new clinical insights.
“RBCTs combine traditional clinical trial methodology with the advantages of registry systems to gain new clinical insights (Foroughi et al. 2018).”
From Dental Research in the Digital Age: The Registry-Based Clinical Trial. (2026) · cites this paper as Foroughi et al. 2018
Cites
Randomized Trial of TAS-102 for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Mayer, R. J., Van Cutsem, E., Falcone, A., Yoshino, T., Garcia-Carbonero, R., Mizunuma, N., Yamazaki, K., Shimada, Y., Tabernero, J., Komatsu, Y., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1414325 · Cited by 1,431 · see citing works
Venook, A. P., Niedzwiecki, D., Lenz, H.-J., Innocenti, F., Fruth, B., Meyerhardt, J. A., Schrag, D., Greene, C., O'Neil, B. H., Atkins, J. N., et al. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7105 · Cited by 898 · see citing works
Registry-based randomized clinical trials—a new clinical trial paradigm
James, S., Rao, S. V., & Granger, C. B. (2015) · Nature Reviews Cardiology · doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2015.33 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Getting Off the “Gold Standard”: Randomized Controlled Trials and Education Research
Sullivan, G. M. (2011) · Journal of Graduate Medical Education · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-11-00147.1 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Blumle, A., Meerpohl, J. J., Rucker, G., Antes, G., Schumacher, M., & von Elm, E. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d1828 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dental Research in the Digital Age: The Registry-Based Clinical Trial.
Joda, T., Settecase, E., Heitz‐Mayfield, L., Derks, J., Jung, R. E., & Zitzmann, N. U. (2026) · Clinical oral implants research · doi:10.1111/clr.70061 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Foroughi, S., Wong, H., Gately, L., Lee, M., Simons, K., Tie, J., Burgess, A. W., & Gibbs, P.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Foroughi, Siavash
- ORCID
- Venue
- Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-06-26
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 365-373
- ISSN
- 1743-7555 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-7563
- OpenAlex
- W2810163940
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
- Amgen, Merck and Roche
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Keywords
- medical oncology, combination therapy, personalized treatment selection, predictive biomarkers, trial recruitment, generalizability, multidisciplinary cancer care
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Registries, Epidemiologic Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review