Adverse events reporting in stage III NSCLC trials investigating surgery and radiotherapy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Iseli T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7487347 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adverse events reporting in stage III NSCLC trials investigating surgery and radiotherapy.
Iseli Thomas T Berghmans Thierry T Glatzer Markus M Rittmeyer Achim A Massard Gilbert G Durieux Valérie V Buchsbaum Thomas T Putora Paul Martin PM
ERJ open research 20200701 3
<h4>Background</h4>Current treatment options for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consist of different combinations of chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Treatment choices are highly individual decisions, in which adverse events (AEs) are relevant for decision-making. This study aims to analyse reporting of AEs in prospective stage III NSCLC trials, focussing on trials including radiotherapy and/or surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed was searched for prospective studie ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.
| S-EPMC8636814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome.DesignA review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals.Data sourcesElectronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016.MethodsA prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data.ResultsWe identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes.ConclusionsThis review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.
| S-EPMC6398660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFor 300 paediatric trials, we evaluated the reporting of: a data monitoring committee (DMC); interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints.MethodsFor this cross-sectional evaluation, we randomly selected 300 paediatric trials published in 2012 from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We collected data on the reporting of a DMC; interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints. We reported the findings descriptively and stratified by trial characteristics.ResultsEighty-five (28%) of the trials investigated drugs, and 18% (n=55/300) reported a DMC. The reporting of a DMC was more common among multicentre than single centre trials (n=41/132, 31% vs n=14/139, 10%, p<0.001) and industry-sponsored trials compared with those sponsored by other sources (n=16/50, 32% vs n=39/250, 16%, p=0.009). Trials that reported a DMC enrolled more participants than those that did not (median [range]): 224 (10-60480) vs 91 (10-9528) (p<0.001). Only 25% of these trials reported interim analyses, and 42% reported stopping rules. Less than half (n=143/300, 48%) of trials reported on adverse events, and 72% (n=215/300) reported on harm-related endpoints. Trials that reported a DMC compared with those that did not were more likely to report adverse events (n=43/55, 78% vs 100/245, 41%, p<0.001) and harm-related endpoints (n=52/55, 95% vs. 163/245, 67%, p<0.001). Only 32% of drug trials reported a DMC; 18% and 19% did not report on adverse events or harm-related endpoints, respectively.ConclusionsThe reporting of a DMC was infrequent, even among drug trials. Few trials reported stopping rules or interim analyses. Reporting of adverse events and harm-related endpoints was suboptimal.
| S-EPMC6542427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials.ObjectiveTo examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014.ResultsOf the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]).Conclusions and relevanceParticipants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.
| S-EPMC5553624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the "Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade" method.MethodsWe developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as "early" (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or "late" (i.e. after the 6th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies ("Irinotecan" and "Oxaliplatin") from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database (fondationarcad.org). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting.ResultsOur method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3-4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset.ConclusionWe developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method.
| S-EPMC8009044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stage III N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a complex disease with poor treatment outcomes. For patients in whom the disease is considered technically resectable, the main treatment options include surgery (with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy/neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT)) or CRT followed by adjuvant immunotherapy (dependent on programmed death ligand 1 status). As there is no clear evidence demonstrating a survival benefit between these options, patient preference plays an important role. A lack of a consensus definition of resectability of N2 disease adds to the complexity of the decision-making process. We compared 10 international guidelines on the treatment of NSCLC to investigate the recommendations on preoperatively diagnosed stage III N2 NSCLC. This comparison simplified the treatment paths to multimodal therapy based on surgery or radiotherapy (RT). We analysed factors relevant to decision-making within these guidelines. Overall, for nonbulky mediastinal lymph node involvement there was no clear preference between surgery and CRT. With increasing extent of mediastinal nodal disease, a tendency towards multimodal treatment based on RT was identified. In multiple scenarios, surgery or RT-based treatments are feasible and patient involvement in decision-making is critical.
| S-EPMC7024765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdverse events (AEs) in clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials or across sources for a single trial may produce inconsistent information about the adverse events associated with interventions.MethodsWe compared the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., "selection criteria"), including the number of different types of AEs reported (i.e., rather than the number of events). We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports (CSRs)) of trials for two drug-indications-gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. Electronic searches were completed in 2015. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting.ResultsWe identified 21 gabapentin and 7 quetiapine trials. We found 6 gabapentin CSRs and 2 quetiapine CSRs, all written by drug manufacturers. All CSRs reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion "occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group," while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion "occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group."ConclusionsSelection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might "cherry-pick" AEs based on results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems identified in this study.
| S-EPMC6728982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the potential impact of fractionation regimes and overall treatment time (OTT) on lymphopenia during definitive radiotherapy (RT) and its associations with patient outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsSubjects consisted of 115 patients who had received definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with different doses and fractions for unresectable stage III NSCLC. Clinical and laboratory records were reviewed to assess the changes in total lymphocyte counts (TLCs) during definitive RT. The associations of the TLCs with the clinical and treatment features, and outcomes were analyzed.ResultsThe median reduction of TLCs in the entire cohort was 1300 cells/μL (interquartile range [IQR], 950-1510 cells/μL). Of all patients, 63 (54.8%) experienced severe lymphopenia (SL) (TLC nadir < 500 cells/μL), which occurred at a median of the 5th week following RT initiation, not at the completion of RT or upon treatment with maximal doses. SL risk was increased over the first 5 weeks (odds ratio [OR] = 3.455, P = 0.007), after which, no increased risk was observed (OR = 0.562, P = 0.216). The median TLCs remained low and failed to recover to the initial normal values of their pre-RT level after 2 months of RT completion. Patients without SL exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.544, P = 0.010) and overall survival (HR = 0.463, P = 0.011) after controlling for confounding variables in multivariate analyses. The incidence of SL was significantly lower (71.1% reduction in risk (OR = 0.289, P = 0.007)) in patients who received hypofractionated RT with an OTT within 4 weeks, compared to those who had an OTT of more than 4 weeks (32.1% vs 62.1%, P = 0.006). Multivariate analyses revealed that OTT within 4 weeks (OR = 0.322, P = 0.032) was significantly associated with a decreased risk of developing SL after controlling for confounding factors.ConclusionsHypofractionated RT was significantly associated with a decreased risk of SL and improved survival during definitive radiotherapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC.
| S-EPMC6537222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:An estimated 17,000 patients are treated annually in the UK with radical radiotherapy (RT) for pelvic cancer. New treatment approaches in RT have increased survivorship and changed the subjective toxicity profile for patients who experience acute and long-term pelvic-related adverse events (AE). Multi-disciplinary follow-up creates difficulty for monitoring and responding to these events during treatment and beyond. Originally developed for use in systemic oncology therapy eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an online system for patients to report AEs from home. eRAPID enables patient data to be integrated into the electronic patient records for use in clinical practice, provides patient management advice for mild and moderate AE and advice to contact the hospital for severe AE. The system has now been developed for pelvic RT patients, and we aim to test the intervention in a pilot study with staff and patients to inform a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods:Eligible patients are those attending St James's University hospital cancer centre and The Christie Hospital Manchester undergoing pelvic radiotherapy+/-chemotherapy/hormonotherapy for prostate, lower gastrointestinal and gynaecological cancers. A prospective 1:1 randomised (intervention or usual care) parallel group design with repeated measures and mixed methods will be employed. We aim to recruit 168 patients following recommendations for sample size estimates for pilot studies. Participants using eRAPID will report AE (at least weekly) from home weekly for 6 weeks and 6 weeks post-treatment (12-week total) then at 18 and 24 weeks. Hospital staff will review eRAPID reports and use information during consultations. Notifications will be sent to the relevant clinical team when severe symptoms are reported. We will measure patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires (Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), process of care impact (hospital records of patient contacts and admissions) and economic variables (EQ5D-5L, patient use of resources)). Staff and patient experiences will be explored via semi-structured interviews. Discussion:The objectives are to establish feasibility, recruitment, integrity of the system and attrition rates, determine effect sizes and aid selection of the primary outcome measure for a future RCT. We will also refine the intervention by exploring staff and patient views. The overall goal of this complex intervention is to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise documentation of AE within the clinical datasets. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264.
| S-EPMC5987546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:This study summarized the frequency and functional impact of adverse events (AEs) that occur after surgery for end-stage ankle arthritis (ESAA) to inform decision making. METHODS:This was a multisite prospective cohort study to compare ankle arthroplasty to ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of ESAA among 6 participating sites. We compared the risk and impact of nonankle AEs and ankle-specific AEs versus no AEs controlling for potential confounding factors, including operative procedure using multinomial logistic regression. We estimated differences in postoperative functional outcomes by AE occurrence using linear mixed effects regression. Among 517 patients who had surgery for ankle arthritis and completed the full baseline assessment, follow-up scores were available in 494 (95%) patients. RESULTS:There were a total of 628 reported AEs (477 in the arthroplasty group and 151 in the arthrodesis group). These occurred in 261 (63%) arthroplasty patients and 67 (65%) arthrodesis patients. There were 50 (8%) ankle-specific AEs. The risk of an ankle-specific AE was slightly higher in the arthrodesis group versus the arthroplasty group, odds ratio (OR) 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI, 0.85, 3.98). The OR for the risk of non-ankle-specific AE versus no AE was 0.96, 95% CI (0.57, 1.61) for those receiving arthrodesis compared to arthroplasty. Compared to patients with no AEs, those experiencing ankle-specific AEs had significantly less improvement in Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Sports and activities of daily living (ADL) subscores and worst pain outcomes; however, both groups improved significantly in all measures except mental health. CONCLUSIONS:Ankle-specific AEs were infrequent and only weakly associated with operative procedure. Although patients improved in all functional outcomes except mental health, regardless of AE occurrence, ankle-specific AEs negatively impacted patient improvement compared to those with no AEs or a nonankle AE. The logistical effort and cost of tracking nonankle AEs does not seem to be justified. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level II, prospective comparative study.
| S-EPMC6318122 | biostudies-literature