Sheng Zhang1, Fei Liang1, Wenfeng Li1, Xichun Hu2. 1. Sheng Zhang, Fei Liang, and Xichun Hu, Shanghai Cancer Center and Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai; and Wenfeng Li, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, People's Republic of China. 2. Sheng Zhang, Fei Liang, and Xichun Hu, Shanghai Cancer Center and Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai; and Wenfeng Li, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, People's Republic of China. wozhangsheng@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment decisions in clinical oncology are guided by results from phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The results of subgroup analyses may be potentially important in individualizing patient care. We investigated the appropriateness of the use and interpretation of subgroup analyses in oncology RCTs on the basis of the CONSORT statement requirements. METHODS: Phase III RCTs published between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013, were reviewed to identify eligible studies of solid tumor treatments. Information related to the subgroup analyses included prespecification, number, subgroup factors, interaction test use, and claim of subgroup difference. RESULTS: A total of 221 publications reporting data on 184,500 patients were analyzed. One hundred eighty-eight (85%) RCTs were reported with subgroup analyses. Of those, 146 (78%) trials were reported with at least six subgroups. For the majority of trials with subgroup analyses (173; 92%), the actual number of subgroup analyses conducted cannot be determined. Only 59 (31%) RCTs were reported with fully prespecified subgroups and only 64 (34%) trials were reported with interaction tests. In addition, 102 (54%) RCTs were reported with claims of subgroup differences. Of those, only 18 claims of RCTs (18%) were based on significant interaction test results. CONCLUSION: The reporting of subgroup analyses in contemporary oncology RCTs is neither uniform nor complete; it requires improvement to ensure consistency and to provide critical information for guiding patient care. Major problems include testing of a large number of subgroups, subgroups without prespecifications, and inadequate use of interaction tests.
PURPOSE: Treatment decisions in clinical oncology are guided by results from phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The results of subgroup analyses may be potentially important in individualizing patient care. We investigated the appropriateness of the use and interpretation of subgroup analyses in oncology RCTs on the basis of the CONSORT statement requirements. METHODS: Phase III RCTs published between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013, were reviewed to identify eligible studies of solid tumor treatments. Information related to the subgroup analyses included prespecification, number, subgroup factors, interaction test use, and claim of subgroup difference. RESULTS: A total of 221 publications reporting data on 184,500 patients were analyzed. One hundred eighty-eight (85%) RCTs were reported with subgroup analyses. Of those, 146 (78%) trials were reported with at least six subgroups. For the majority of trials with subgroup analyses (173; 92%), the actual number of subgroup analyses conducted cannot be determined. Only 59 (31%) RCTs were reported with fully prespecified subgroups and only 64 (34%) trials were reported with interaction tests. In addition, 102 (54%) RCTs were reported with claims of subgroup differences. Of those, only 18 claims of RCTs (18%) were based on significant interaction test results. CONCLUSION: The reporting of subgroup analyses in contemporary oncology RCTs is neither uniform nor complete; it requires improvement to ensure consistency and to provide critical information for guiding patient care. Major problems include testing of a large number of subgroups, subgroups without prespecifications, and inadequate use of interaction tests.
Authors: Stefan Schandelmaier; Matthias Briel; Ravi Varadhan; Christopher H Schmid; Niveditha Devasenapathy; Rodney A Hayward; Joel Gagnier; Michael Borenstein; Geert J M G van der Heijden; Issa J Dahabreh; Xin Sun; Willi Sauerbrei; Michael Walsh; John P A Ioannidis; Lehana Thabane; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Peter Lance; David S Alberts; Patricia A Thompson; Liane Fales; Fang Wang; Jerilyn San Jose; Elizabeth T Jacobs; Phyllis J Goodman; Amy K Darke; Monica Yee; Lori Minasian; Ian M Thompson; Denise J Roe Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-10-24
Authors: Manuel David Gil-Sierra; Maria Del Pilar Briceño-Casado; Marina Sánchez-Hidalgo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Alex K Bryant; Kamya Sankar; Garth W Strohbehn; Lili Zhao; David Elliott; Victoria Daniel; Nithya Ramnath; Michael D Green Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Emmanuelle Kempf; Jennifer A de Beyer; Jonathan Cook; Jane Holmes; Seid Mohammed; Tri-Long Nguyên; Iveta Simera; Marialena Trivella; Douglas G Altman; Sally Hopewell; Karel G M Moons; Raphael Porcher; Johannes B Reitsma; Willi Sauerbrei; Gary S Collins Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 7.640