“Standard Care” in Cancer Clinical Trials: An Analysis of Care Provided to Women in the Control Arms of Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

Restricted access

Background: For trials to validly evaluate new treatments, comparison against the best existing alternative treatment is essential. We reviewed the care provided to women in control arms of breast cancer clinical trials to estimate the proportion consistent with the standard of care as defined in clinical guidelines. Methods: We analyzed phase III randomized controlled breast cancer trials comparing drug treatments with “standard care,” enrolling between 2004 and 2014, and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary outcome was the proportion of trials in which treatment in the control arm was consistent with concurrent NCCN Guidelines. A secondary analysis assessed trials recruiting outside the United States that provided control group therapy not consistent with NCCN Guidelines, comparing them with the German Gynecological Oncology Group (AGO) guidelines. We assessed associations between the primary outcome and a priori selected trial characteristics. Results: This study included 210 trials that recruited 229,182 women worldwide; 29% of trials (60/210) did not provide control group treatment that was consistent with NCCN Guidelines. For trials not recruiting in the United States, results were similar; in 21% of trials, control arm treatment was inconsistent with both AGO and NCCN Guidelines. Factors significantly associated with offering control arm treatment that were inconsistent with guidelines were time period (later trials were less likely to be consistent), breast cancer stage and type (trials in early-stage breast cancer and estrogen receptor–negative disease were less likely consistent), and recruitment in ≥4 countries and recruitment outside the United States. Conclusions: To ensure that clinical trials achieve their goal of obtaining the best information to guide patient treatment, the question of how investigators chose and describe “standard care” for control arm participants warrants further investigation.

Author contributions: Study concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript preparation, critical revision, and approval of final manuscript: All authors. Guarantor of paper: Dear.

Correspondence: Rachel F. Dear, MBBS, PhD, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, 119-143 Missenden Road, Camperdown NSW 2050, Sydney, Australia. E-mail: Rachel.dear@sydney.edu.au

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplemental Material (PDF 169 KB)
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 604 438 32
PDF Downloads 74 52 10
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0