Karlynn BrintzenhofeSzoc1, Jessica L Krok-Schoen2, Beverly Canin3, Ira Parker4, Amy R MacKenzie5, Thuy Koll6, Ritika Vankina7, Christine D Hsu8, Brian Jang9, Kathy Pan7, Jennifer L Lund8, Edith Starbuck10, Armin Shahrokni11. 1. College of Allied Health Sciences, School of Social Work, University of Cincinnati, USA. Electronic address: karlynn.brintzenhofeszoc@uc.edu. 2. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, USA. 3. Cancer and Aging Research Group, USA. 4. Geriatric Oncology Solutions, USA. 5. Thomas Jefferson University, USA. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA. 7. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, USA. 8. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. 9. Tulane University School of Medicine, USA. 10. University of Cincinnati Libraries, University of Cincinnati, USA. 11. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Inspired by the American Society of Clinical Oncology's recommendations to strengthen the evidence base for older adults with cancer, the purpose of this systematic review is to identify the reporting of treatment efficacy and adverse events specific to older adults with cancer in Phase III chemo-therapeutic clinical trials. This review also investigates the frequency with which these data points were reported in the literature to identify gaps in reporting and opportunities to expand the knowledge base on clinical outcomes for older adults with cancer. METHODS: Chemo-therapeutic clinical trial data published from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 was reviewed. Manuscripts (n = 929) were identified based on keyword searches of EMBASE and PubMed. After removal of duplicates (n = 116) and articles that did not meet this study's inclusion criteria (n = 654), 159 articles were identified for review. RESULTS: Reviewed papers were published in 36 different scientific journals and included twenty-five different cancer types. Of the 159 articles, 117 (73.6%) reported age-specific medians and 75 (47.2%) included stratifications of data by age. Treatment efficacy was reported in 96.2% of the articles with 39.9% reporting effectiveness of treatment by age. Reporting of adverse events was included in 84.9% of the articles with only 8.9% reporting these events stratified by age. CONCLUSION: Results suggest inadequate reporting of treatment efficacy and adverse events as well as basic descriptive statistics about the age distribution of study subjects. Conscious efforts are needed to address these deficiencies at every level of planning and conducting clinical trials as wells as reporting outcomes stratified by age. Ultimately, standardized reporting could lead to improved treatment decisions and outcomes for older adults with cancer.
PURPOSE: Inspired by the American Society of Clinical Oncology's recommendations to strengthen the evidence base for older adults with cancer, the purpose of this systematic review is to identify the reporting of treatment efficacy and adverse events specific to older adults with cancer in Phase III chemo-therapeutic clinical trials. This review also investigates the frequency with which these data points were reported in the literature to identify gaps in reporting and opportunities to expand the knowledge base on clinical outcomes for older adults with cancer. METHODS: Chemo-therapeutic clinical trial data published from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 was reviewed. Manuscripts (n = 929) were identified based on keyword searches of EMBASE and PubMed. After removal of duplicates (n = 116) and articles that did not meet this study's inclusion criteria (n = 654), 159 articles were identified for review. RESULTS: Reviewed papers were published in 36 different scientific journals and included twenty-five different cancer types. Of the 159 articles, 117 (73.6%) reported age-specific medians and 75 (47.2%) included stratifications of data by age. Treatment efficacy was reported in 96.2% of the articles with 39.9% reporting effectiveness of treatment by age. Reporting of adverse events was included in 84.9% of the articles with only 8.9% reporting these events stratified by age. CONCLUSION: Results suggest inadequate reporting of treatment efficacy and adverse events as well as basic descriptive statistics about the age distribution of study subjects. Conscious efforts are needed to address these deficiencies at every level of planning and conducting clinical trials as wells as reporting outcomes stratified by age. Ultimately, standardized reporting could lead to improved treatment decisions and outcomes for older adults with cancer.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Hans Wildiers; Murielle Mauer; Athanasios Pallis; Arti Hurria; Supriya G Mohile; Andrea Luciani; Giuseppe Curigliano; Martine Extermann; Stuart M Lichtman; Karla Ballman; Harvey Jay Cohen; Hyman Muss; Ulrich Wedding Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tamas Hickish; Thierry Andre; Lucjan Wyrwicz; Mark Saunders; Tomasz Sarosiek; Judit Kocsis; Radim Nemecek; Wojciech Rogowski; Krzysztof Lesniewski-Kmak; Lubos Petruzelka; Ron N Apte; Prasant Mohanty; Michael Stecher; John Simard; Aimery de Gramont Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Alessandro Gronchi; Stefano Ferrari; Vittorio Quagliuolo; Javier Martin Broto; Antonio Lopez Pousa; Giovanni Grignani; Umberto Basso; Jean-Yves Blay; Oscar Tendero; Robert Diaz Beveridge; Virginia Ferraresi; Iwona Lugowska; Domenico Franco Merlo; Valeria Fontana; Emanuela Marchesi; Davide Maria Donati; Elena Palassini; Emanuela Palmerini; Rita De Sanctis; Carlo Morosi; Silvia Stacchiotti; Silvia Bagué; Jean Michelle Coindre; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos; Piero Picci; Paolo Bruzzi; Paolo Giovanni Casali Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rachel S Kerr; Sharon Love; Eva Segelov; Elaine Johnstone; Beverly Falcon; Peter Hewett; Andrew Weaver; David Church; Claire Scudder; Sarah Pearson; Patrick Julier; Francesco Pezzella; Ian Tomlinson; Enric Domingo; David J Kerr Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Robert L Ferris; George Blumenschein; Jerome Fayette; Joel Guigay; A Dimitrios Colevas; Lisa Licitra; Kevin Harrington; Stefan Kasper; Everett E Vokes; Caroline Even; Francis Worden; Nabil F Saba; Lara C Iglesias Docampo; Robert Haddad; Tamara Rordorf; Naomi Kiyota; Makoto Tahara; Manish Monga; Mark Lynch; William J Geese; Justin Kopit; James W Shaw; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Takuji Okusaka; H Miyakawa; H Fujii; S Nakamori; T Satoh; Y Hamamoto; T Ito; H Maguchi; S Matsumoto; H Ueno; T Ioka; N Boku; S Egawa; T Hatori; J Furuse; K Mizumoto; S Ohkawa; T Yamaguchi; K Yamao; A Funakoshi; J S Chen; A L Cheng; A Sato; Y Ohashi; M Tanaka Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Isabela M Bumanlag; Joseph Abi Jaoude; Michael K Rooney; Cullen M Taniguchi; Ethan B Ludmir Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Ronald Chow; Daniel E Lage; Grant R Williams; Mina S Sedrak; Joseph A Greer; Jennifer S Temel; Ryan D Nipp Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Marie A Flannery; Eva Culakova; Beverly E Canin; Luke Peppone; Erika Ramsdale; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544