Dataset Information

Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult Phase III Therapeutic Trials: An Analysis of Cancer Clinical Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

There is a paucity of research on the impact of cancer treatment on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are self-report measures used to assess HRQOL and symptom burden. The extent to which PROs have been included in trials that include common AYA cancer types has not been previously assessed.

Methods

Therapeutic phase 3 trials among common AYA cancer types (Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, sarcomas, and germ cell tumors) initiated between 2007 and 2020 were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov. The proportions and characteristics of trials including a PRO endpoint were assessed. For comparison with an older population, the proportion of breast and colorectal therapeutic phase 3 trials including PRO endpoints were assessed.

Results

Eighty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 20.7% of therapeutic phase 3 AYA trials included a PRO endpoint, and only one trial published PRO data. Germ cell tumors (42.9%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (40%) trials had the highest proportions of PRO inclusion. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer generic, cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire was the most commonly used PRO measure; nevertheless, the measures used varied within and between cancer types. The proportion of trials including a PRO endpoint did not change significantly between 2007 to 2013 and 2014 to 2020 (18.6% vs 22.7%, P=.79).

Conclusions

Few therapeutic phase 3 AYA cancer trials include PRO endpoints, fewer publish PRO data, and there is no homogeneity in the measures administered. Therapeutic trials represent an underused opportunity to capture PRO data in the AYA population with the goal of improving HRQOL outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Berkman AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8630401 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult Phase III Therapeutic Trials: An Analysis of Cancer Clinical Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Berkman Amy M AM Murphy Karly M KM Siembida Elizabeth J EJ Lau Nancy N Geng Yimin Y Parsons Susan K SK Salsman John M JM Roth Michael E ME

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 20210808 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>There is a paucity of research on the impact of cancer treatment on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are self-report measures used to assess HRQOL and symptom burden. The extent to which PROs have been included in trials that include common AYA cancer types has not been previously assessed.<h4>Methods</h4>Therapeutic phase 3 trials among common AYA cancer types (Hodgkin lymphom ...[more]

PMID: 34838280

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe $1.1 billion investment in comparative effectiveness research will reshape the evidence-base supporting decisions about treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost. Defining the current prevalence and characteristics of comparative effectiveness (CE) research will enable future assessments of the impact of this program.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of clinical trials addressing priority research topics defined by the Institute of Medicine and conducted in the US between 2007 and 2010. Trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of comparative effectiveness research, nature of comparators selected, funding sources, and impact of these factors on results.Results231 (22.3%; 95% CI 19.8%-24.9%) studies were CE studies and 804 (77.7%; 95% CI, 75.1%-80.2%) were non-CE studies, with 379 (36.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-39.6%) employing a placebo control and 425 (41.1%; 95% CI, 38.1%-44.1%) no control. The most common treatments examined in CE studies were drug interventions (37.2%), behavioral interventions (28.6%), and procedures (15.6%). Study findings were favorable for the experimental treatment in 34.8% of CE studies and greater than twice as many (78.6%) non-CE studies (P<0.001). CE studies were more likely to receive government funding (P?=?0.003) and less likely to receive industry funding (P?=?0.01), with 71.8% of CE studies primarily funded by a noncommercial source. The types of interventions studied differed based on funding source, with 95.4% of industry trials studying a drug or device. In addition, industry-funded CE studies were associated with the fewest pediatric subjects (P<0.001), the largest anticipated sample size (P<0.001), and the shortest study duration (P<0.001).ConclusionsIn this sample of studies examining high priority areas for CE research, less than a quarter are CE studies and the majority is supported by government and nonprofits. The low prevalence of CE research exists across CE studies with a broad array of interventions and characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundData monitoring committees advise on clinical trial conduct through appraisal of emerging data to ensure participant safety and scientific integrity. While consideration of their use is recommended for trials performed with vulnerable populations, previous research has shown that data monitoring committees are reported infrequently in publications of pediatric randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the frequency of reported data monitoring committee adoption in ClinicalTrials.gov registry records and to examine the influence of key trial characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional data analysis of all randomized controlled trials performed exclusively in a pediatric population and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2008 and 2021. We used the Access to Aggregate Content of ClinicalTrials.gov database to retrieve publicly available information on trial characteristics and data on safety results. Abstracted data included reported trial design and conduct parameters, population and intervention characteristics, reasons for prematurely halting, serious adverse events, and mortality outcomes. We performed descriptive analyses on the collected data and explored the influence of clinical, methodological, and operational trial characteristics on the reported adoption of data monitoring committees.ResultsWe identified 13,928 pediatric randomized controlled trial records, of which 39.7% reported adopting a data monitoring committee, 49.0% reported not adopting a data monitoring committee, and 11.3% did not answer on this item. While the number of registered pediatric trials has been increasing since 2008, we found no clear time trend in the reported adoption of data monitoring committees. Data monitoring committees were more common in multicenter trials (50.6% vs 36.9% for single-center), multinational trials (60.2% vs 38.7% for single-country), National Institutes of Health-funded (60.3% vs 40.1% for industry-funded or 37.5% for other funders), and placebo-controlled (47.6% vs 37.5% for other types of control groups). Data monitoring committees were also more common among trials enrolling younger participants, trials employing blinding techniques, and larger trials. Data monitoring committees were more common in trials with at least one serious adverse event (52.6% vs 38.4% for those without) as well as for trials with reported deaths (70.3% vs 38.9% for trials without reported deaths). In all, 4.9% were listed as halted prematurely, most often due to low accrual rates. Trials with a data monitoring committee were more often halted for reasons related to scientific data than trials without a data monitoring committee (15.7% vs 7.3%).ConclusionAccording to registry records, the use of data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials was more frequent than previously reported in reviews of published trial reports. The use of data monitoring committees varied across key clinical and trial characteristics based on which their use is recommended. Data monitoring committees may still be underutilized in pediatric trials, and reporting of this item could be improved.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterise current COVID-19-related research activities.DesignCross-sectional analysis.SettingClinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov testing interventions relevant to COVID-19.Data sourcesClinicalTrials.gov was searched for COVID-19 and related terms to identify trials registered between 1 December 2019 and 1 May 2020 that test interventions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.Main outcome measuresWe classified trials according to intervention type, and report key trial characteristics including recruitment status, location, funder type, target enrolment number, intervention model (single group, randomised or sequential assignment) and projected completion date.ResultsOf the 630 identified clinical trials related to COVID-19, 509 (81%) involved the study of drugs or biological agents. Of these trials of drugs and biologics, 305 (60%) use an open-label design, 43 (8%) are single blinded (participant only) and 161 (32%) are double blinded (participant and investigator). 94 (18%) of the drug/biological trials are non-randomised. Either hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine is administered as part of the study protocol in 152 (30%) of the drug/biological trials. The total planned enrolment for these hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine trials is over 200 000 participants, which represents 65% of the total planned enrolment for all registered trials of drugs or biologics. There are also at least 25 registered trials of azithromycin (n=53), convalescent plasma (n=38), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=30), stem cell treatments (n=29) and tocilizumab (n=25). 142 trials were registered in the first 3 months of 2020, and 488 trials were registered between 1 April and 1 May 2020.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate a robust research response to the COVID-19 pandemic, though many of the currently planned and ongoing trials focus on a small number of potential therapies, and many also lack essential design features and power necessary to provide accurate treatment effect estimates.

Project description:ImportanceThe published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials.ObjectivesTo compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020.ExposuresProbiotic or antibiotic.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated.ResultsA total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.

Dataset Information

Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult Phase III Therapeutic Trials: An Analysis of Cancer Clinical Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adolescent and Young Adult Phase III Therapeutic Trials: An Analysis of Cancer Clinical Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets