Dataset Information

Cardiovascular Event Reporting in Modern Cancer Radiation Therapy Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors, particularly after chest radiation therapy (RT). However, the extent to which CVD events are consistently reported in contemporary prospective trials is unknown.

Methods and materials

From 10 high-impact RT, oncology, and medicine journals, we identified all latter phase trials from 2000 to 2019 enrolling patients with breast, lung, lymphoma, mesothelioma, or esophageal cancer wherein chest-RT was delivered. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as incident myocardial infarction, heart failure, coronary revascularization, arrhythmia, stroke, or CVD death across treatment arms. The secondary outcome was the report of any CVD event. Multivariable regression was used to identify factors associated with CVD reporting. Pooled annualized incidence rates of MACEs across RT trials were compared with contemporary population rates using relative risks (RRs).

Results

The 108 trials that met criteria enrolled 59,070 patients (mean age, 58.0 ± 10.2 years; 46.0% female), with 273,587 person-years of available follow-up. During a median follow-up of 48 months, 468 MACEs were reported (including 96 heart failures, 75 acute coronary syndrome, 1 revascularization, 94 arrhythmias, 28 strokes, and 20 CVD deaths; 307 occurred in the intervention arms vs 144 in the control arms; RR, 1.96; P < .001). Altogether, 50.0% of trials did not report MACEs, and 37.0% did not report any CVD. The overall weighted-trial incidence was 376 events per 100,000 person-years compared with 1408 events per 100,000 person-years in similar nontrial patients (RR, 0.27; P < .001). There were no RT factors associated with CVD reporting.

Conclusion

In contemporary chest RT-based clinical trials, reported CVD rates were lower than expected population rates.

SUBMITTER: Prasad RN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8844682 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cardiovascular Event Reporting in Modern Cancer Radiation Therapy Trials.

Prasad Rahul N RN McIntyre Mark M Guha Avirup A Carter Rebecca R RR Yildiz Vedat O VO Paskett Electra E Lustberg Maryam M Ruz Patrick P Williams Terence M TM Kola-Kehinde Onaopepo O Miller Eric D ED Addison Daniel D

Advances in radiation oncology 20211229 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors, particularly after chest radiation therapy (RT). However, the extent to which CVD events are consistently reported in contemporary prospective trials is unknown.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>From 10 high-impact RT, oncology, and medicine journals, we identified all latter phase trials from 2000 to 2019 enrolling patients with breast, lung, lymphoma, mesothelioma, or esophageal cancer ...[more]

PMID: 35198835

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown.ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials.MethodsFrom the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed.ResultsOverall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22).ConclusionsAmong pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.

Project description:PurposePatients with pancreatic cancer often receive radiation therapy before undergoing surgical resection. We compared the clinical outcomes differences between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and 3-dimensional (3D)/intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).Methods and materialsWe retrospectively collected data from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients with borderline resectable/potentially resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant SBRT (median, 36.0 Gy/5fx), 3D conformal radiation (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) or IMRT (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) were included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were analyzed using Cox regression.ResultsIn total, 104 patients were included in our study. Fifty-seven patients (54.8%) were treated with SBRT, and 47 patients (45.2%) were treated with 3D/IMRT. Patients in the SBRT group were slightly older (median age: 70.3 vs 62.7 in the 3D/IMRT group). Both groups had similar proportions of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SBRT: 30, 52.6%; 3D/IMRT: 24, 51.1%). All patients were treated with chemotherapy. Patients in the SBRT group underwent more surgical resection compared with the 3D/IMRT group (38.6% vs 23.4%, respectively). At a median follow-up of 22 months, a total of 60 patients (57.7%) died: 25 (25/57, 43.9%) in the SBRT group, and 35 (35/47, 74.5%) in the 3D/IMRT group. Median OS was slightly higher in the SBRT group (29.6 months vs 24.1 months in the 3D/IMRT group). On multivariable Cox regression, the choice of radiation therapy technique was not associated with differences in OS (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] = 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-1.3%, P = .18). Moreover, patients that underwent surgical resection had better OS (aHR = 0.3, 95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%, P = .01). Furthermore, progression-free survival was also similar between patients treated with SBRT and those treated with 3D/IMRT (aHR = 0.9, 95% CI, 0.5%-1.8%, P = .81).ConclusionsSBRT was associated with similar clinical outcomes compared with conventional radiation techniques, despite being delivered over a shorter period of time which would spare patients prolonged treatment burden. Future prospective data are still needed to better assess the role of SBRT in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Project description:ObjectivePoor reporting in randomized clinical trial (RCT) abstracts reduces quality and misinforms readers. Spin, a biased presentation of findings, could frequently mislead clinicians to accept a clinical intervention despite non-significant primary outcome. Therefore, good reporting practices and absence of spin enhances research quality. We aim to assess the reporting quality and spin in abstracts of RCTs evaluating the effect of periodontal therapy on cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and 17 trial registration platforms were searched. Cohort, non-randomized, non-English studies, and pediatric studies were excluded. RCT abstracts were reviewed by 2 authors using the CONSORT for abstracts and spin checklists for data extraction. Cohen's Kappa statistic was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Data on the selected RCT publication metrics were collected. Descriptive analysis was performed with non-parametric methods. Correlation analysis between quality, spin and bibliometric parameters was conducted.Results24 RCTs were selected for CONSORT analysis and 14 fulfilled the criteria for spin analysis. Several important RCT elements per CONSORT were neglected in the abstract including description of the study population (100%), explicitly stated primary outcome (87%), methods of randomization and blinding (100%), trial registration (87%). No RCT examined true outcomes (CVD events). A significant fraction of the abstracts appeared with at least one form of spin in the results and conclusions (86%) and claimed some treatment benefit in spite of non-significant primary outcome (64%). High-quality reporting had a significant positive correlation with reporting of trial registration (p = 0.04) and funding (p = 0.009). Spinning showed marginal negative correlation with reporting quality (p = 0.059).ConclusionPoor adherence to the CONSORT guidelines and high levels of data spin were found in abstracts of RCTs exploring the effects of periodontal therapy on CVD outcomes. Our findings indicate that journal editors and reviewers should consider strict adherence to proper reporting guidelines to improve reporting quality and reduce waste.

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.

Project description:BackgroundMore and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.MethodsThe PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.ResultsOf the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).ConclusionImmune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.

Dataset Information

Cardiovascular Event Reporting in Modern Cancer Radiation Therapy Trials.

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cardiovascular Event Reporting in Modern Cancer Radiation Therapy Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets