Comparison of primary endpoints between publications, registries, and protocols of phase III cancer clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liang F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5722592 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of primary endpoints between publications, registries, and protocols of phase III cancer clinical trials.
Liang Fei F Guo Xinmei X Zhang Sheng S Xue Hongxi H Chen Qiang Q Hu Xichun X
Oncotarget 20171003 57
<h4>Background</h4>Decisions by leading journals to require trial registration and to make protocols of phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) publicly accessible were landmark events in clinical trial reporting.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We identified phase III cancer RCTs published between 2013 and 2015 in New England Journal of Medicine (<i>NEJM</i>), The Lancet, The lancet Oncology, <i>JAMA</i> and Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO).<h4>Results</h4>We identified 345 reports of phase ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objectives: We aimed to study the prevalence of selective reporting of primary and secondary outcomes in tinnitus trials and to examine if selective reporting of outcome measures is influenced by the nature and direction of its results. Background: Selective reporting of outcome measures has been reported in several biomedical fields and can influence the clinical usefulness and implementation of outcomes of clinical trials. It is reported as one of the obstacles in finding an effective intervention for tinnitus. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) was used to identify all registered interventional tinnitus trials up to December 2015. A standardized search was used to find corresponding publications up to March 2018. The prespecified outcomes in CT.gov were compared with the outcomes reported in corresponding publication(s). The effects of the (lack of) statistical significance of trial results and the effects of funding source on record adherence were evaluated. Changes in registration elements were assessed with the Archive site of CT.gov. Results: We found corresponding publications for 60 (64.5%) of 93 eligible tinnitus trials registered in CT.gov. Of all the publications, five (7.5%) fully reported outcome measures entirely in line with the prespecified outcome measures. Discrepancies between the prespecified and reported outcomes were found in a total of 51 (76.1%) of the studies for primary outcomes, whereas 62 (92.5%) of the studies had discrepancies in secondary outcomes. In secondary outcomes, statistical significance of trial results influenced CT.gov record adherence. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of discrepancy in industry-funded [n = 98 (87.5%) discrepant outcomes] and non-industry funded trials [n = 172 (74.5%) discrepant outcomes] (p = 0.01). Finally, 15 (25.9%) trialists made modifications in registered outcome measures during or after the trial period. Conclusion: Tinnitus trials suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias. Awareness of its presence must be raised to limit the obstacles of finding an effective intervention for tinnitus.
| S-EPMC8222810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries. METHODS:We reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries. RESULTS:Of the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials. CONCLUSION:Although recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.
| S-EPMC6292048 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceClinical trial registries are intended to increase clinical research transparency by nonselectively identifying and documenting clinical trial designs and outcomes. Inconsistencies in reported data undermine the utility of such registries and have previously been noted in general medical literature.ObjectiveTo assess whether inconsistencies in reported data exist between ophthalmic literature and clinical trial registries.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, interventional clinical trials published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014, in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology were reviewed. Observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, and post hoc reports were excluded, yielding a sample size of 106 articles. Data collection was performed from January through September 2016. Data review and adjudication continued through January 2017.Main outcomes and measuresIf possible, articles were matched to registry entries listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database or in 1 of 16 international registries indexed by the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform version 3.2 search engine. Each article-registry pair was assessed for inconsistencies in design, results, and funding (each of which was further divided into subcategories) by 2 reviewers and adjudicated by a third.ResultsOf 106 trials that met the study criteria, matching registry entries were found for 68 (64.2%), whereas no matching registry entries were found for 38 (35.8%). Inconsistencies were identified in study design, study results, and funding sources, including specific interventions in 8 (11.8%), primary outcome measure (POM) designs in 32 (47.1%), and POM results in 48 (70.6%). In addition, numerous data pieces were unreported, including analysis methods in 52 (76.5%) and POM results in 38 (55.9%).Conclusions and relevanceClinical trial registries were underused in this sample of ophthalmology clinical trials. For studies with registry data, inconsistency rates between published and registered data were similar to those previously reported for general medical literature. In most cases, inconsistencies involved missing data, but explicit discrepancies in methods and/or data were also found. Transparency and credibility of published trials may be improved by closer attention to their registration and reporting.
| S-EPMC6512264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees.Methods and findingsWe used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements.ConclusionsPublication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.
| S-EPMC4924795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine, using research on duloxetine for major depressive disorder as an example, if there are inconsistencies between protocols, clinical study reports, and main publicly available sources (journal articles and trial registries), and within clinical study reports themselves, with respect to benefits and major harms.DesignData on primary efficacy analysis and major harms extracted from each data source and compared.SettingNine randomised placebo controlled trials of duloxetine (total 2878 patients) submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for marketing approval for major depressive disorder.Data sourcesClinical study reports, including protocols as appendices (total 13,729 pages), were obtained from the EMA in May 2011. Journal articles were identified through relevant literature databases and contacting the manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Clinicaltrials.gov and the manufacturer's online clinical trial registry were searched for trial results.ResultsClinical study reports fully described the primary efficacy analysis and major harms (deaths (including suicides), suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and discontinuations because of adverse events). There were minor inconsistencies in the population in the primary efficacy analysis between the protocol and clinical study report and within the clinical study report for one trial. Furthermore, we found contradictory information within the reports for seven serious adverse events and eight adverse events that led to discontinuation but with no apparent bias. In each trial, a median of 406 (range 177-645) and 166 (100-241) treatment emergent adverse events (adverse events that emerged or worsened after study drug was started) in the randomised phase were not reported in journal articles and Lilly trial registry reports, respectively. We also found publication bias in relation to beneficial effects.ConclusionClinical study reports contained extensive data on major harms that were unavailable in journal articles and in trial registry reports. There were inconsistencies between protocols and clinical study reports and within clinical study reports. Clinical study reports should be used as the data source for systematic reviews of drugs, but they should first be checked against protocols and within themselves for accuracy and consistency.
| S-EPMC4045316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications.DesignCohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications.SettingSix research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.Data sources894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications.ResultsOf 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis.ConclusionsSubgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.
| S-EPMC4100616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Seamless phase 2/3 design has become increasingly popular in clinical trials with a single endpoint. Trials that define success based on the achievement of all co-primary endpoints (CPEs) encounter the challenge of inflated type 2 error rates, often leading to an overly large sample size. To tackle this challenge, we introduced a seamless phase 2/3 design strategy that employs Bayesian predictive power (BPP) for futility monitoring and sample size re-estimation at interim analysis. The correlations among multiple CPEs are incorporated using a Dirichlet-multinomial distribution. An alternative approach based on conditional power (CP) was also discussed for comparison. A seamless phase 2/3 vaccine trial employing four binary endpoints under the non-inferior hypothesis serves as an example. Our results spotlight that, in scenarios with relatively small phase 2 sample sizes (e.g., 50 or 100 subjects), the BPP approach either outperforms or matches the CP approach in terms of overall power. Particularly, with n1 = 50 and ρ = 0, BPP showcases an overall power advantage over CP by as much as 8.54%. Furthermore, when the phase 2 stage enrolled more subjects (e.g., 150 or 200), especially with a phase 2 sample size of 200 and ρ = 0, the BPP approach evidences a peak difference of 5.76% in early stop probability over the CP approach, emphasizing its better efficiency in terminating futile trials. It's noteworthy that both BPP and CP methodologies maintained type 1 error rates under 2.5%. In conclusion, the integration of the Dirichlet-Multinominal model with the BPP approach offers improvement in certain scenarios over the CP approach for seamless phase 2/3 trials with multiple CPEs.
| S-EPMC10792895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven the inherent challenges of conducting randomized phase III trials in older cancer patients, single-arm phase II trials which assess the feasibility of a treatment that has already been shown to be effective in a younger population may provide a compelling alternative. Such an approach would need to evaluate treatment feasibility based on a composite endpoint that combines multiple clinical dimensions and to stratify older patients as fit or frail to account for the heterogeneity of the study population to recommend an appropriate treatment approach. In this context, stratified adaptive two-stage designs for binary or composite endpoints, initially developed for biomarker studies, allow to include two subgroups whilst maintaining competitive statistical performances. In practice, heterogeneity may indeed affect more than one dimension and incorporating co-primary endpoints, which independently assess each individual clinical dimension, would therefore appear quite pertinent. The current paper presents a novel phase II design for co-primary endpoints which takes into account the heterogeneity of a population. METHODS: We developed a stratified adaptive Bryant & Day design based on the Jones et al. and Parashar et al. algorithm. This two-stage design allows to jointly assess two dimensions (e.g. activity and toxicity) in two different subgroups. The operating characteristics of this new design were evaluated using examples and simulation comparisons with the Bryant & Day design in the context where the study population is stratified according to a pre-defined criterion.ResultsSimulation results demonstrated that the new design minimized the expected and maximum sample sizes as compared to parallel Bryant & Day designs (one in each subgroup), whilst controlling type I error rates and maintaining a competitive statistical power as well as a high probability of detecting heterogeneity.ConclusionsIn a heterogeneous population, this two-stage stratified adaptive phase II design provides a useful alternative to classical one and allows to identify a subgroup of interest without dramatically increasing sample size. As heterogeneity is not limited to older populations, this new design may also be relevant to other study populations such as children or adolescents and young adults or the development of targeted therapies based on a biomarker.
| S-EPMC9608934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe best phase II design and endpoint for growth inhibitory agents is controversial. We simulated phase II trials by resampling patients from a positive (sorafenib vs. placebo; TARGET) and a negative (AE941 vs. placebo) phase III trial in metastatic renal cancer to compare the ability of various designs and endpoints to predict the known results.Experimental designA total of 770 and 259 patients from TARGET and the AE 941 trial, respectively, were resampled (5,000 replicates) to simulate phase II trials with α = 0.10 (one-sided). Designs/endpoints: single arm, two-stage with response rate (RR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; 37 patients); and randomized, two arm (20-35 patients per arm) with RR by RECIST, mean log ratio of tumor sizes (log ratio), progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 90 days (PFS-90), and overall PFS.ResultsSingle-arm trials were positive with RR by RECIST in 55% and 1% of replications for sorafenib and AE 941, respectively. Randomized trials versus placebo with 20 patients per arm were positive with RR by RECIST in 55% and 7%, log ratio in 88% and 25%, PFS-90 in 64% and 15%, and overall PFS in 69% and 9% of replications for sorafenib and AE 941, respectively.ConclusionsCompared with the single-arm design and the randomized design comparing PFS, the randomized phase II design with the log ratio endpoint has greater power to predict the positive phase III result of sorafenib in renal cancer, but a higher false positive rate for the negative phase III result of AE 941.
| S-EPMC3328614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical trials that study immunogenicity of combination vaccines often have less power than desirable. To make up for the reduction in statistical power at the study level, researchers have to increase the study sample size. To study immunogenicity variables, we used the geometric mean concentration of immune response after vaccination as immunologic endpoint and compared 3 sample size calculation methods: the "Inflation factors" method, the "Incrementing" method, and the "Bonferroni correction" method when there are multiple continuous co-primary endpoints. The parameters were set according to the actual situation of the use of combination vaccines and the simulation results were used as reference. The present study demonstrates that all 3 methods are applicable when the effect size of each endpoint is similar and the endpoints are at most weakly correlated, but when there is a true difference in effect sizes among endpoints, the "Incrementing" method has the best performance.
| S-EPMC6363135 | biostudies-literature