Transparency of Results Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kao J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10413165 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Transparency of Results Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials.
Kao Jennifer J Ross Joseph S JS Miller Jennifer E JE
JAMA network open 20230801 8
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7951952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.MethodsFirst, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes.ResultsWe evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results.ConclusionsOur results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.
| S-EPMC8925077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aims The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act mandates that applicable clinical trials report basic summary results to the ClinicalTrials.gov database within 1 year of trial completion or termination. We aimed to determine the proportion of pulmonary trials reporting basic summary results to ClinicalTrials.gov and assess factors associated with reporting. Methods We identified pulmonary clinical trials subject to the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (called highly likely applicable clinical trials) that were completed or terminated between 2008 and 2012 and reported results by September 2013. We estimated the cumulative percentage of applicable clinical trials reporting results by pulmonary disease category. Multivariable Cox regression modeling identified characteristics independently associated with results reporting. Results Of 1450 pulmonary highly likely applicable clinical trials, 380 (26%) examined respiratory neoplasms, 238 (16%) asthma, 175 (12%) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 657 (45%) other respiratory diseases. Most (75%) were pharmaceutical highly likely applicable clinical trials and 71% were industry-funded. Approximately 15% of highly likely applicable clinical trials reported results within 1 year of trial completion, while 55% reported results over the 5-year study period. Earlier phase highly likely applicable clinical trials were less likely to report results compared to phase 4 highly likely applicable clinical trials (phases 1/2 and 2 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.54)), phases 2/3 and 3 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.55 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.72)) and phase not applicable (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.63)). Pulmonary highly likely applicable clinical trials without Food and Drug Administration oversight were less likely to report results compared with those with oversight (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.83)). Conclusion A total of 15% of pulmonary clinical highly likely applicable clinical trials report basic summary results to ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of trial completion. Strategies to improve reporting are needed within the pulmonary community.
| S-EPMC6007020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConfidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.MethodsEligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013-2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.ResultsOf 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).ConclusionsThe quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.
| S-EPMC4651548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:More than one published paper are often derived from analyzing the same cohort of individuals to make full use of the collected information. Preplanned study outcomes are generally mentioned in open databases while exhaustive information on methodological aspects are provided in submitted articles.
| S-EPMC7427052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to identify the sources of funding for investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs) in Portugal, and to recommend ways to improve the quality of information collected from clinical trial databases about funding.Design and methodsA systematic search of trial registrations over the last 13 years-using the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) and four clinical trials registries (CTRs)-was carried out to identify IICTs in Portugal, used as a case study. Data from the databases were compared with data contained in publications to evaluate the consistency of information on funding sources. The term 'database' is used in this study to refer to both the WHO-ICTRP and the CTRs. When mentioned separately, the WHO-ICTRP is referred to as a 'platform', while the CTRs are referred to as 'registries'.OutcomeSuggestions to improve clinical trials databases to clearly identify the funding sources and data ownership in IICTs.ResultsTwo hundred and eighty-two IICTs were identified in Portugal. Twenty per cent of trials were supported by industry with unclear information on the ownership of the results. Inaccuracy was found in the information about sponsors and funders. The information about funding in all resulting publications (77 out of 133 completed studies) was also inconsistent between databases in 35 out of 77 (45%) of the studies. Notably, 23% of the trials funded by non-profit organisations (n=226) received funds from international and/or national funding agencies.ConclusionsIdentification of IICT funding and ownership of results is unclear in the databases used for this study, which may lead to misunderstandings about the independence of the obtained results. Transparency and accuracy are desirable so that public decision makers and strategic partners can accurately evaluate national performance in this particular type of clinical research.
| S-EPMC6530385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The scientific credibility of findings from clinical trials can be undermined by a range of problems including missing data, endpoint switching, data dredging, and selective publication. Together, these issues have contributed to systematically distorted perceptions regarding the benefits and risks of treatments. While these issues have been well documented and widely discussed within the profession, legislative intervention has seen limited success. Recently, a method was described for using a blockchain to prove the existence of documents describing pre-specified endpoints in clinical trials. Here, we extend the idea by using smart contracts - code, and data, that resides at a specific address in a blockchain, and whose execution is cryptographically validated by the network - to demonstrate how trust in clinical trials can be enforced and data manipulation eliminated. We show that blockchain smart contracts provide a novel technological solution to the data manipulation problem, by acting as trusted administrators and providing an immutable record of trial history.
| S-EPMC5357027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical trial consent for protocols and their revisions should be transparent for patients and traceable for stakeholders. Our goal is to implement a process allowing for collection of patients' informed consent, which is bound to protocol revisions, storing and tracking the consent in a secure, unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable way, and enabling the sharing of this information in real time. For that, we build a consent workflow using a trending technology called Blockchain. This is a distributed technology that brings a built-in layer of transparency and traceability. From a more general and prospective point of view, we believe Blockchain technology brings a paradigmatical shift to the entire clinical research field. We designed a Proof-of-Concept protocol consisting of time-stamping each step of the patient's consent collection using Blockchain, thus archiving and historicising the consent through cryptographic validation in a securely unfalsifiable and transparent way. For each protocol revision, consent was sought again. We obtained a single document, in an open format, that accounted for the whole consent collection process: a time-stamped consent status regarding each version of the protocol. This document cannot be corrupted and can be checked on any dedicated public website. It should be considered a robust proof of data. However, in a live clinical trial, the authentication system should be strengthened to remove the need for third parties, here trial stakeholders, and give participative control to the peer users. In the future, the complex data flow of a clinical trial could be tracked by using Blockchain, which core functionality, named Smart Contract, could help prevent clinical trial events not occurring in the correct chronological order, for example including patients before they consented or analysing case report form data before freezing the database. Globally, Blockchain could help with reliability, security, transparency and could be a consistent step toward reproducibility.
| S-EPMC5676196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceClinical trials are the path to test and introduce new therapies in the clinic. Trials that are unable to produce results represent inefficiency in the system and may also undermine patient confidence in the new drug development process.ObjectivesTo survey the immunotherapy clinical trial landscape of breast cancer between January 2004 and April 2023 and examine what fraction of trials with primary completion date up to November 30, 2022, failed to report outcome, assessing the proportion of trials that yielded positive results and describing trial features associated with these 2 outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included breast cancer immunotherapy trials identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial details and results were retrieved in December 2023. Google Scholar, PubMed, and LARVOL CLIN websites were also searched for reports.Main outcomes and measuresTrial outcome reported as abstract or manuscript. Reported trials were categorized as positive (ie, met its end point) or negative. Association between reporting and trial features were tested using Fisher exact test.ResultsA total of 331 immuno-oncology trials were initiated in breast cancer by April 2023; 242 trials were phase II, 47 were phase I, and 42 phase III. By setting, 212 studies (64.0%) were conducted in metastatic, 94 (28.4%) in neoadjuvant, and 25 (7.6%) in adjuvant settings. Among phase II and III trials, 168 (59.2%) were nonrandomized. One hundred twenty trials had primary completion dates up to November 30, 2022, of which 30 (25.0%; enrolling a combined 2428 patients) failed to report their outcomes; 7 phase I trials (31.8%), 21 phase II trials (23.6%), and 2 phase III trials (22.2%) were unreported. Single-center studies were significantly more likely to be unreported than multicenter studies (19 of 54 [35.2%] vs 9 of 60 [15.0%]; P = .02). Of the 90 reported trials, 47 (52.2%) and 43 (47.8%) were positive and negative, respectively. Seventeen of 19 (89.5%) of the reported randomized trials (accruing a total of 4189 patients) were negative.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of immunotherapy breast cancer trials, the large number of trials yielded modest clinical impact. Single-center trials commonly failed to report their outcomes and many phase II studies have not translated into corresponding successful phase III trials.
| S-EPMC11259908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) differs from invasive breast cancer of no special type in many ways. Evidence on treatment efficacy for ILC is, however, lacking. We studied the degree of documentation and representation of ILC in phase III/IV clinical trials for novel breast cancer treatments. Trials were identified on Pubmed and clinicaltrials.gov. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were reviewed for requirements on histological subtype and tumor measurability. Documentation of ILC was assessed and ILC inclusion rate, central pathology and subgroup analyses were evaluated. Inclusion restrictions concerning tumor measurability were found in 39/93 manuscripts. Inclusion rates for ILC were documented in 13/93 manuscripts and varied between 2.0 and 26.0%. No central pathology for ILC was reported and 3/13 manuscripts had ILC sub-analyses. ILC is largely disregarded in most trials with poor representation and documentation. The current inclusion criteria using RECIST v1.1, fall short in recognizing the unique non-measurable metastatic infiltration of ILC.
| S-EPMC10954721 | biostudies-literature