Incomplete Toxicity Reporting and Use of Toxicity-Minimizing Language in Phase III Oncology Trials.

Purpose: This study aimed to determine complete toxicity reporting (CTR), and the use of subjective toxicity-minimizing language (TML) among phase III oncology trials.

Methods: Two-arm superiority-design phase III oncology trials published from 2002 to 2020 were reviewed for toxicity data. CTR was defined as reporting total adverse events (TAEs), total serious adverse events (SAEs), total deaths, and study therapy discontinuations because of toxicity.

Justification, margin values, and analysis populations for oncologic noninferiority and equivalence trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

Background: Noninferiority (NI) and equivalence trials evaluate whether an experimental therapy's effect on the primary endpoint (PEP) is contained within an acceptable margin compared to standard-of-care. The reliability and impact of this conclusion, however, is largely dependent on the justification for this design, the choice of margin, and the analysis population used.

Methods: A meta-epidemiological study was performed of phase 3 randomized NI and equivalence oncologic trials registered at ClinicalTrials.

Off-Protocol Radiation Therapy in Phase 3 Metastatic Solid Tumor Trials.

Purpose: Increasing data suggest that radiation therapy, particularly ablative radiation therapy, alters the natural history of metastatic disease. For patients with metastatic disease enrolled in prospective trials testing systemic therapy, the use of off-protocol radiation therapy to improve clinical symptoms or extend the duration of study systemic therapy may influence study endpoints. We sought to evaluate how often off-protocol radiation therapy was permitted among systemic therapy phase 3 trials, how often off-protocol radiation therapy is used, and whether off-protocol radiation therapy correlated with study outcomes.

Increasing Power in Phase III Oncology Trials With Multivariable Regression: An Empirical Assessment of 535 Primary End Point Analyses.

Purpose: A previous study demonstrated that power against the (unobserved) true effect for the primary end point (PEP) of most phase III oncology trials is low, suggesting an increased risk of false-negative findings in the field of late-phase oncology. Fitting models with prognostic covariates is a potential solution to improve power; however, the extent to which trials leverage this approach, and its impact on trial interpretation at scale, is unknown. To that end, we hypothesized that phase III trials using multivariable PEP analyses are more likely to demonstrate superiority versus trials with univariable analyses.

Improving the clinical meaning of surrogate endpoints: An empirical assessment of clinical progression in phase III oncology trials.

Disease progression in clinical trials is commonly defined by radiologic measures. However, clinical progression may be more meaningful to patients, may occur even when radiologic criteria for progression are not met, and often requires a change in therapy in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine the utilization of clinical progression criteria within progression-based trial endpoints among phase III trials testing systemic therapies for metastatic solid tumors.

Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials.

Most oncology trials define superiority of an experimental therapy compared to a control therapy according to frequentist significance thresholds, which are widely misinterpreted. Posterior probability distributions computed by Bayesian inference may be more intuitive measures of uncertainty, particularly for measures of clinical benefit such as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Here, we manually reconstructed 194,129 individual patient-level outcomes across 230 phase III, superiority-design, oncology trials.

Secondary Endpoint Utilization and Publication Rate among Phase III Oncology Trials.

Unlabelled: Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.