Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Investigational New Drugs
Published in: Investigational New Drugs 6/2017

01-12-2017 | REVIEW

Comparison of reporting phase I trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov and matched publications

Authors: D. Shepshelovich, H. Goldvaser, L. Wang, A. R. Abdul Razak, P. L. Bedard

Published in: Investigational New Drugs | Issue 6/2017

Login to get access

Summary

Background Data on completeness of reporting of phase I cancer clinical trials in publications are lacking. Methods The ClinicalTrials.​gov database was searched for completed adult phase I cancer trials with reported results. PubMed was searched for matching primary publications published prior to November 1, 2016. Reporting in primary publications was compared with the ClinicalTrials.​gov database using a 28-point score (2=complete; 1=partial; 0=no reporting) for 14 items related to study design, outcome measures and safety profile. Inconsistencies between primary publications and ClinicalTrials.​gov were recorded. Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with incomplete reporting. Results After a review of 583 trials in ClinicalTrials.​gov, 163 matching primary publications were identified. Publications reported outcomes that did not appear in ClinicalTrials.​gov in 25% of trials. Outcomes were upgraded, downgraded or omitted in publications in 47% of trials. The overall median reporting score was 23/28 (interquartile range 21–25). Incompletely reported items in >25% publications were: inclusion criteria (29%), primary outcome definition (26%), secondary outcome definitions (53%), adverse events (71%), serious adverse events (80%) and dates of study start and database lock (91%). Higher reporting scores were associated with phase I (vs phase I/II) trials (p<0.001), multicenter trials (p<0.001) and publication in journals with lower impact factor (p=0.004). Conclusions Reported results in primary publications for early phase cancer trials are frequently inconsistent or incomplete compared with ClinicalTrials.​gov entries. ClinicalTrials.​gov may provide more comprehensive data from new cancer drug trials.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Di Maio M, Gallo C, Leighl NB et al (2015) Symptomatic toxicities experienced during anticancer treatment: agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 33(8):910–915CrossRefPubMed
2.
Fromme EK, Eilers KM, Mori M et al (2004) How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the quality-of-life questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol 22(17):3485–3490CrossRefPubMed
3.
Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T et al (2006) Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: results of a questionnaire- based study. Lancet Oncol 7(11):903–909CrossRefPubMed
4.
Cirillo M, Venturini M, Ciccarelli L et al (2009) Clinician versus nurse symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute-common terminology criteria for adverse events during chemotherapy: results of a comparison based on patient’s self-reported questionnaire. Ann Oncol 20(12):1929–1935CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sivendran S, Latif A, McBride RB et al (2014) Adverse event reporting in cancer clinical trial publications. J Clin Oncol 32(2):83–89CrossRefPubMed
6.
Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E et al (2013) Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med 10(12):e1001566 discussion e1001566CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Vera-Badillo FE, Napoleone M, Krzyzanowska MK et al (2016) Bias in reporting of randomised clinical trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer 61:29–35CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tannock IF, Amir E, Booth CM et al (2016) Relevance of randomised controlled trials in oncology. Lancet Oncol 17(12):e560–e567CrossRefPubMed
9.
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S et al (2014) Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 32(36):4120–4126CrossRefPubMed
10.
Camacho LH, Bacik J, Cheung A, Spriggs DR (2005) Presentation and subsequent publication rates of phase I oncology clinical trials. Cancer 104(7):1497–1504CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 22(3):276–282CrossRef
13.
14.
Lemieux J, Goodwin PJ, Pritchard KI et al (2008) Identification of cancer care and protocol characteristics associated with recruitment in breast cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 269270:4458–4465CrossRef
15.
Srikanthan A, Vera-Badillo F, Ethier J et al (2016) Evolution in the eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials for systemic cancer therapies. Cancer Treat Rev 43:67–73CrossRefPubMed
16.
Blumle A, Meerpohl JJ, Rucker G et al (2011) Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomized trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles. BMJ 342:d1828CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Kim ES, Bernstein D, Hilsenbeck SG et al (2015) Modernizing eligibility criteria for molecularly driven trials. J Clin Oncol 33(25):2815–2820CrossRefPubMed
18.
Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA (2007) Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical. JAMA 297(11):1233–1240CrossRefPubMed
19.
Begg CB, Engstrom PF (1987) Eligibility and extrapolation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 5(6):962–968CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zhang S, Liang F, Li W, Tannock I (2016) Comparison of eligibility criteria between protocols, registries, and publications of cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 108(11):djw129CrossRef
21.
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D et al (2009) Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302(9):977–984CrossRefPubMed
22.
Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One 8(7):e66844CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Le Tourneau C, Razak AR, Gan HK et al (2011) Heterogeneity in the definition of dose-limiting toxicity in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents: a review of the literature. Eur J Cancer 47(10):1468–1475CrossRefPubMed
24.
Dal-Ré R, Marušić A (2016) Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 72(10):1283–1288CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Dechartres A, Ravaud P, Atal I et al (2016) Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med 14(1):100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC et al (2004) Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 141(10):781–788CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of reporting phase I trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov and matched publications
Authors
D. Shepshelovich
H. Goldvaser
L. Wang
A. R. Abdul Razak
P. L. Bedard
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Investigational New Drugs / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6997
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0646
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-017-0510-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

Investigational New Drugs 6/2017 Go to the issue

PHASE I STUDIES

A phase 1b dose expansion study of the pan-class I PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) plus carboplatin and paclitaxel in PTEN deficient tumors and with dose intensified carboplatin and paclitaxel

PHASE II STUDIES

Safety and effectiveness of eribulin in Japanese patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a post-marketing observational study

PRECLINICAL STUDIES

Synthesis, characterization, and evaluation of Cd[L-proline]2, a novel histone deacetylase inhibitor that induces epigenetic modification of histone deacetylase isoforms in A549 cells

PRECLINICAL STUDIES

Urolithins impair cell proliferation, arrest the cell cycle and induce apoptosis in UMUC3 bladder cancer cells

SHORT REPORT

Successful osimertinib rechallenge in a patient with advanced non-small cell lung cancer following osimertinib-induced interstitial lung disease after treatment with nivolumab

SHORT REPORT

Osimertinib reactivated immune-related colitis after treatment with anti-PD1 antibody for non-small cell lung cancer
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits