Treatment group-specific inferences in Phase III Randomized Oncology Trials.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Alexander D Sherry, Adina H Passy, Joseph Abi Jaoude, Timothy A Lin, Ramez Kouzy, Pavlos Msaouel, Ethan B Ludmir
{"title":"Treatment group-specific inferences in Phase III Randomized Oncology Trials.","authors":"Alexander D Sherry, Adina H Passy, Joseph Abi Jaoude, Timothy A Lin, Ramez Kouzy, Pavlos Msaouel, Ethan B Ludmir","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Estimation of comparative treatment effects between randomized groups is well-supported in randomized trials. By contrast, treatment group-specific inferences are challenging, as patients are selectively chosen for enrollment, and such inferences are formally discouraged by the CONSORT guidelines. The present study is the first-large scale assessment of the proportion of phase III oncology trials that present treatment group-specific inferences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Published phase III randomized oncology trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov. Treatment group-specific inferences were defined by the presence of 95% CI or standard error for treatment-specific outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 774 phase III trials enrolling 568,080 patients were included. Treatment group-specific inferences were present in 58% of trials (446 of 774), and appeared to be increasing over time (adjusted odds ratio for the publication year, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.17; p < 0.0001). Of the remaining 328 trials, 49 (6%) described group-specific outcomes with measures of variability, such as interquartile range, and 279 (36%) provided point estimates only (e.g., median) for group outcomes.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The majority of published phase III oncology trials present treatment group-specific inferences. However, this inference lacks statistical support, as patients are not randomly sampled from the underlying population, and conflicts with CONSORT guidelines. While ongoing methodological efforts to improve the transportability of treatment group-specific inferences are promising, conventional attempts to generalize treatment-specific outcomes from randomized trials may be misleading. Instead of inference, treatment group-specific outcomes should be described using measures of variability.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"64 ","pages":"470-474"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11959831/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42663","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Estimation of comparative treatment effects between randomized groups is well-supported in randomized trials. By contrast, treatment group-specific inferences are challenging, as patients are selectively chosen for enrollment, and such inferences are formally discouraged by the CONSORT guidelines. The present study is the first-large scale assessment of the proportion of phase III oncology trials that present treatment group-specific inferences.

Methods: Published phase III randomized oncology trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov. Treatment group-specific inferences were defined by the presence of 95% CI or standard error for treatment-specific outcomes.

Results: A total of 774 phase III trials enrolling 568,080 patients were included. Treatment group-specific inferences were present in 58% of trials (446 of 774), and appeared to be increasing over time (adjusted odds ratio for the publication year, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.17; p < 0.0001). Of the remaining 328 trials, 49 (6%) described group-specific outcomes with measures of variability, such as interquartile range, and 279 (36%) provided point estimates only (e.g., median) for group outcomes.

Interpretation: The majority of published phase III oncology trials present treatment group-specific inferences. However, this inference lacks statistical support, as patients are not randomly sampled from the underlying population, and conflicts with CONSORT guidelines. While ongoing methodological efforts to improve the transportability of treatment group-specific inferences are promising, conventional attempts to generalize treatment-specific outcomes from randomized trials may be misleading. Instead of inference, treatment group-specific outcomes should be described using measures of variability.

III期随机肿瘤学试验中治疗组特异性的推论。
背景:随机试验很好地支持了随机组间比较治疗效果的估计。相比之下,治疗组特定的推断是具有挑战性的,因为患者是有选择地选择入组的,而且CONSORT指南正式不鼓励这样的推断。目前的研究是第一次对提出治疗组特异性推论的III期肿瘤试验比例进行大规模评估。方法:从ClinicalTrials.gov网站筛选已发表的III期随机肿瘤学试验。治疗组特定的推断通过治疗特定结果的95% CI或标准误差来定义。结果:共纳入774项III期试验,纳入568,080例患者。58%的试验(774项试验中的446项)存在治疗组特定的推断,并且似乎随着时间的推移而增加(出版年度的校正优势比为1.11;95% CI, 1.06 ~ 1.17;P < 0.0001)。在剩余的328项试验中,49项(6%)试验描述了具有变异性的组特异性结果,例如四分位数范围,279项(36%)试验仅提供了组结果的点估计(例如,中位数)。解释:大多数已发表的III期肿瘤试验都提供了针对治疗组的推断。然而,这一推断缺乏统计支持,因为患者不是从基础人群中随机抽样的,并且与CONSORT指南相冲突。虽然正在进行的方法努力提高治疗组特异性推断的可移植性是有希望的,但从随机试验中概括治疗特异性结果的传统尝试可能会产生误导。而不是推断,治疗组特定的结果应该用变异性来描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信