Background: The reporting quality of publications is of vital importance to ensure accurate evidence dissemination. This study aimed to compare the consistency of results reporting between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and the respective matching publications. Methods: We identified 323 phase III/IV cancer drug trials with a randomized controlled design and searched PubMed for publications in a 50% random sample (n=160). Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. A scoring system was applied to determine characteristics associated with reporting quality. Results: Of 117 reviewed trials with publications, result reporting was significantly more complete in ClinicalTrials.gov for efficacy measurement (92.3% vs 90.6%), serious adverse events (SAEs; 100% vs 43.6%), and other adverse events (OAEs; 100% vs 62.4%). For trials with both posted and published results for design information (n=117), efficacy measurements (n=98), SAEs (n=51), and OAEs (n=73), discrepancies were found in 16 (13.7%), 38 (38.8%), 26 (51.0%), and 54 (74.0%) trials, respectively. Overreporting of treatment effects (7 trials) and alteration of primary end points favoring statistically significant outcomes (11 trials) were the major discrepancies in efficacy reporting; incomplete (66 trials) and underreporting (20 trials) of SAEs were the predominant issues in benefit/risk reporting. Median quality score was 21 (range, 14–28). Trials that had parallel assignment, were phase IV, had primary funding by industry, were completed after 2009, and had earlier results posted possessed better reporting quality. Conclusions: Although most trials showed reasonable completeness and consistency, some discrepancies are prevalent and persistent, jeopardizing evidence-based decision-making. Our findings highlight the need to consult results systematically from both ClinicalTrials.gov and publications.
Do Published Data in Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs Reflect the Real Picture of Efficacy and Safety?
Jia-Wei Lv, Yu-Pei Chen, Guan-Qun Zhou, Xu Liu, Ying Guo, Yan-Ping Mao, Jun Ma, and Ying Sun
Critical Evaluation of the Quality and Recommendations of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Yu-Pei Chen, Ya-Qin Wang, Wen-Fei Li, Lei Chen, Cheng Xu, Tai-Xiang Lu, Ai-Hua Lin, Ji-Jin Yao, Yang-Chan Li, Ying Sun, Yan-Ping Mao, and Jun Ma
Background: Given the distinct biological characteristics and regional distribution of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) compared with other head and neck cancers, and uncertainties regarding therapeutic strategies, physicians require high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to provide transparent recommendations for NPC treatment. This study aimed to critically appraise the quality of NPC CPGs and assess the consistency of their recommendations. Methods: We identified CPGs that provided recommendations on the diagnosis and management of NPC published up to December 2015. Four investigators independently appraised CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Key recommendations by CPGs were also evaluated. Results: A total of 7 CPGs were eligible for this study: 5 produced by professional organizations or governmental agencies and 2 were developed based on expert consensus. Of the 6 AGREE II domains, the applicability domain scored consistently low across CPGs (range, 13.5%–30.2%); no CPG achieved a score of >50% in all 6 domains. The scope and purpose domain (≥73.6% for 4 CPGs) and editorial independence domain (≥75.0% for 6 CPGs) scored highest. Of the 23 AGREE II items, 9 scored less than half of the points available in all 7 CPGs. The recommendations by CPGs were consistent in general; heterogeneity mainly existed among recommended therapeutic strategies. Conclusions: Variation exists in NPC CPG development processes and recommendations. Increased efforts are required to make comprehensive resources available to guide healthcare providers and enhance delivery of high-quality, evidence-based care for NPC. International collaboration is necessary to enable the development of high-quality and regionally relevant CPGs for NPC.
Validation of the 8th Edition of the UICC/AJCC Staging System for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma From Endemic Areas in the Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Era
Ling-Long Tang, Yu-Pei Chen, Yan-Ping Mao, Zi-Xian Wang, Rui Guo, Lei Chen, Li Tian, Ai-Hua Lin, Li Li, Ying Sun, and Jun Ma
Background: In this study, we evaluated the 8th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC)/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in an endemic area, with the aim of validating its applicability and providing further information for future refinements. Methods: A total of 1,790 patients with newly diagnosed, non–distant metastatic, histologically proven NPC treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were retrospectively reviewed. The performance of various staging systems was compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell's concordance index (c-index). Results: For N (node) category, the survival curves of different groups according to the 8th edition were well-separated, and the prognostic model predicted outcomes fairly well. The 8th edition had higher AIC and c-index values for all end points than the 7th edition. However, probably due to the improved locoregional control provided by IMRT, the survival curves for T2 and T3 almost overlapped, without significant differences in locoregional failure-free survival (P=.606) and disease-free survival (P=.735). Due to the difficultly of differentiating T2 and T3, the AIC and c-index values were similar for the T categories of the 7th and 8th editions. Similarly, the overall survival and disease-free survival curves for stage II and III disease were not clearly separated for either the 8th or 7th editions. Conclusions: The 8th edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system for NPC enables more accurate prediction of treatment outcomes. However, several limitations need to be addressed in future editions, and it would be reasonable to further optimize the T category classification.
Chemotherapy With or Without Anti-EGFR Agents in Left- and Right-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis
Zi-Xian Wang, Hao-Xiang Wu, Ming-Ming He, Ying-Nan Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Pei-Rong Ding, Dan Xie, Gong Chen, Yu-Hong Li, Feng Wang, and Rui-Hua Xu
Background: Previous meta-analyses have suggested primary tumor location as a predictive factor for efficacy of anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the recent phase III TAILOR trial addressing this issue was not included in those analyses. This meta-analysis incorporated data from the TAILOR trial to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR agents (cetuximab [Cet] or panitumumab [Pani]) versus chemotherapy alone for RAS wild-type (wt) right- and left-sided mCRC. Patients and Methods: A PubMed-based literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the additional efficacy of Cet/Pani in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in RAS wt left- and right-sided mCRC. Study-level pooled analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were performed. Results: Three first-line RCTs (CRYSTAL, PRIME, and TAILOR) and one second-line RCT (20050181) were included. Significant OS benefits from Cet/Pani were observed in the left-sided (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66–0.86) but not right-sided subgroups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78–1.27). However, the addition of Cet/Pani to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS and ORR in both the left-sided (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.86, and OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.95–5.51, respectively) and right-sided subgroups (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59–0.99, and OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.08–2.93, respectively). Conclusions: The addition of Cet/Pani to chemotherapy significantly benefits PFS and ORR in patients with RAS wt right-sided mCRC, indicating that anti-EGFR therapies may remain an option for selected patients.
Basal Cell Skin Cancer, Version 2.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Chrysalyne D. Schmults, Rachel Blitzblau, Sumaira Z. Aasi, Murad Alam, Arya Amini, Kristin Bibee, Jeremy Bordeaux, Pei-Ling Chen, Carlo M. Contreras, Dominick DiMaio, Jessica M. Donigan, Jeffrey M. Farma, Karthik Ghosh, Kelly Harms, Alan L. Ho, John Nicholas Lukens, Lawrence Mark, Theresa Medina, Kishwer S. Nehal, Paul Nghiem, Kelly Olino, Soo Park, Tejesh Patel, Igor Puzanov, Jason Rich, Aleksandar Sekulic, Ashok R. Shaha, Divya Srivastava, Valencia Thomas, Courtney Tomblinson, Puja Venkat, Yaohui Gloria Xu, Siegrid Yu, Mehran Yusuf, Beth McCullough, and Sara Espinosa
Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer in the United States. Due to the high frequency, BCC occurrences are not typically recorded, and annual rates of incidence can only be estimated. Current estimated rates are 2 million Americans affected annually, and this continues to rise. Exposure to radiation, from either sunlight or previous medical therapy, is a key player in BCC development. BCC is not as aggressive as other skin cancers because it is less likely to metastasize. However, surgery and radiation are prevalent treatment options, therefore disfigurement and limitation of function are significant considerations. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) outline an updated risk stratification and treatment options available for BCC.