Literature DB >> 29593885

High-profile studies frequently and repetitively present data on the same patients, particularly in immunotherapy studies.

Tim Ellis-Caleo1, Aaron Lisberg2, D Andrew Tucker2, Edward B Garon2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, study results have been presented as abstracts at major scientific meetings at the conclusion of the analysis. Recently, presentations of studies in progress and updates to previously presented data have been allowed at major meetings. The frequency and implications of a single study being presented multiple times, particularly in high profile oral presentations, have not been fully evaluated.
METHODS: To identify studies presented multiple times, abstracts from an approximately 1-year period from international conferences for three major societies devoted largely or in part to lung cancer research were assessed (ASCO 2015, World Lung 2015, ESMO 2015 and ASCO 2016). Abstracts were selected in a two-step process. The first step was for subject matter based on keywords: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) or immunotherapy. Searches differed slightly based on individual website functionality, with ASCO searched by track, World Lung by session and ESMO by individual abstract. In a second step, abstracts for which clinical outcome data was presented from a trial with an identifiable National Clinical Trial (NCT) number were selected. Immunotherapy abstracts that did not include the treatment of NSCLC or SCLC were excluded in the second step.
RESULTS: A total of 851 abstracts were identified that were related to NSCLC, SCLC or immunotherapy. Of these, 357 referred to a clinical trial. In total, 110 of 357 (31%) described clinical trials that were presented multiple times (mean 2.75, range 2-7), and in 44 (12%), this occurred at the same conference. Of the 113 oral presentations, 75 (66%) presented data from clinical trials, either as posters or oral presentations. Further, 35 of the 113 (31%) oral presentations presented data from clinical trials that had generated other oral presentations. Of the 16 unique clinical trials leading to multiple oral presentations, a variety of issues led to the duplicate presentations, including different cohorts of the same trial, biomarker analysis, analysis by one study variable, or simply updated data. Moreover, 107 of the 357 (30%) clinical trial abstracts pertained to immunotherapy, including 4 of the 16 clinical trials generating multiple oral presentations. Of the 16 trials generating multiple oral presentations, 11 (69%) lead to a full-length publication by July 2017, including all of those pertaining to immunotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a pattern of multiple presentations of clinical trials, particularly in oral presentations, at major meetings. In most cases, data presented in subsequent oral presentations related entirely to patients whose data was presented in the previous oral presentation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trial; lung cancer; publication

Year:  2018        PMID: 29593885      PMCID: PMC5861271          DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Dis        ISSN: 2072-1439            Impact factor:   2.895


  17 in total

1.  Pharmaceutical branding of resident physicians.

Authors:  S K Sigworth; M D Nettleman; G M Cohen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-09-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles.

Authors:  R M Pitkin; M A Branagan; L F Burmeister
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Mar 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting.

Authors:  Monika K Krzyzanowska; Melania Pintilie; Ian F Tannock
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-07-23       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Accuracy of abstracts for original research articles in pharmacy journals.

Authors:  Leah G Ward; Michael G Kendrach; Sherry O Price
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2004-05-18       Impact factor: 3.154

5.  The reporting quality of abstracts of randomised controlled trials submitted to the ICS meeting in Heidelberg.

Authors:  Peter Herbison
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.696

6.  Pattern of Duplicate Presentations at National Hematology-Oncology Meetings: Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Authors:  Radhakrishnan Ramchandren; Charles A Schiffer
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 7.  Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.

Authors:  R W Scherer; P Langenberg; E von Elm
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

8.  Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Mustafa Toma; Finlay A McAlister; Liza Bialy; Denise Adams; Ben Vandermeer; Paul W Armstrong
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Reporting of critical care trial abstracts: a comparison before and after the announcement of CONSORT guideline for abstracts.

Authors:  Akira Kuriyama; Naomi Takahashi; Takeo Nakayama
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  An Analysis of Duplicate Presentations at the 2014 Through 2016 AOSSM and AANA Annual Meetings.

Authors:  Matthew J Kraeutler; Trevor J Carver; Eric C McCarty
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2017-07-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.