Literature DB >> 34755313

Generalizability of Randomized Controlled Trials in Rectal Cancer.

Shawn Hsu1, Katherine J Rosen2, AnaPaula Cupertino3, Larissa Temple2, Fergal Fleming2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The generalizability of outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology is a frequent concern. Given the prevalence and multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, understanding the generalizability of rectal cancer RCTs is critical to surgical oncologists.
METHODS: An exhaustive literature review identified 100 non-metastatic rectal cancer RCTs published in English over the past 10 years investigating surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy. In order to evaluate the representativeness of these RCTs compared to the USA and each continent's rectal cancer populations, demographic characteristics were stratified by surgical versus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) trial and by continent then compared with the National Cancer Database and CANCER TODAY using chi-squared and Welch's t-tests.
RESULTS: Of the 100 trials identified, 65% enrolled significantly younger patients, and 38% enrolled a significantly greater proportion of males than the US rectal cancer population. These demographic differences were more prominent among CRT trials than surgical trials. Half of all trials enrolled patients who were on average more than 7 years younger and enrolled a 5% greater proportion of males than their respective continental rectal cancer populations. Patients enrolled in trials had more advanced cancers than their corresponding continental populations. Sociodemographic data was rarely reported.
CONCLUSION: Patients enrolled in trials were younger, predominantly male, and had advanced stage cancer when compared to the rectal cancer population. Sociodemographic variables are underreported, further limiting equal participation in clinical trials. Future rectal cancer RCTs should strive to recruit representative samples. To enhance recruitment of women and underrepresented minorities, tailored recruitment strategies must be implemented.
© 2021. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disparities; Randomized controlled trial; Rectal cancer; Representativeness

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34755313     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-05192-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  20 in total

1.  Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results: prognostic differences between participants and nonparticipants.

Authors:  Linda S Elting; Catherine Cooksley; B Nebiyou Bekele; Michael Frumovitz; Elenir B C Avritscher; Charlotte Sun; Diane C Bodurka
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Understanding controlled trials. Why are randomised controlled trials important?

Authors:  B Sibbald; M Roland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-17

4.  Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials.

Authors:  L F Hutchins; J M Unger; J J Crowley; C A Coltman; K S Albain
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Age, sex, race and ethnicity representativeness of randomised controlled trials in peri-operative medicine.

Authors:  W A Lindsay; M M Murphy; D S Almghairbi; I K Moppett
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 6.955

6.  Cancer trials versus the real world in the United States.

Authors:  Waddah B Al-Refaie; Selwyn M Vickers; Wei Zhong; Helen Parsons; David Rothenberger; Elizabeth B Habermann
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades.

Authors:  Christopher M Booth; David W Cescon; Lisa Wang; Ian F Tannock; Monika K Krzyzanowska
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Internal and external validity: can you apply research study results to your patients?

Authors:  Cecilia Maria Patino; Juliana Carvalho Ferreira
Journal:  J Bras Pneumol       Date:  2018 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.624

9.  Differences between clinical trial participants and patients in a population-based registry: the German Rectal Cancer Study vs. the Rostock Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Paul Kalata; Peter Martus; Heike Zettl; Claus Rödel; Werner Hohenberger; Rudolf Raab; Heinz Becker; Torsten Liersch; Christian Wittekind; Rolf Sauer; Rainer Fietkau
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Internal, External, and Ecological Validity in Research Design, Conduct, and Evaluation.

Authors:  Chittaranjan Andrade
Journal:  Indian J Psychol Med       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.