Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS: Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

Quels sont les bénéfices d'une immunisation passive postexpositionnelle contre la rougeole ? : Revue Cochrane pour le praticien

Question clinique : Une patiente de 43 ans connue pour un lupus érythémateux disséminé et une néphropathie lupique stable et traitée par hydroxychloroquine et mycophénolate mofétil vous rapporte avoir eu contact il y a quatre jours avec un enfant atteint de la rougeole. Elle ne présente aucun symptôme et son dernier bilan vaccinal montre un taux d'anticorps contre la rougeole non protecteur. La patiente devrait-elle recevoir une immunisation active ou passive contre la rougeole? Contexte En Suisse : la couverture vaccinale contre la rougeole n'est pas assez importante pour empêcher sa diffusion. L'immunisation passive avec des immunoglobulines est destinée aux personnes non immunes exposées à la rougeole, recommandée en Suisse aux personnes à haut risque. Cette revue visait à évaluer l'efficacité et l'innocuité de l'injection intramusculaire ou de la perfusion intraveineuse d'immunoglobulines pour prévenir la rougeole chez les personnes susceptibles avant l'apparition des symptômes.

Gamma Knife Surgery versus Linac for Brain Metastasis: Which Technique for Which Patient? Analysis of an Historical Cohort of 63 Consecutive Patients Harboring 130 Lesions

Objectives: We present the retrospective analysis of a single-institution experience for radiosurgery (RS) in brain metastasis (BM) with Gamma Knife (GK) and Linac. Methods: From July 2010 to July 2012, 28 patients (with 83 lesions) had RS with GK and 35 patients (with 47 lesions) with Linac. The primary outcome was the local progression-free survival (LPFS). The secondary outcome was the overall survival (OS). Apart a standard statistical analysis, we included a Cox regression model with shared frailty, to modulate the within-patient correlation (preliminary evaluation showed a significant frailty effect, meaning that the correlation within patient could be ignored). Results: The mean follow-up period was 11.7 months (median 7.9, 1.7-22.7) for GK and 18.1 (median 17, 7.5-28.7) for Linac. The median number of lesions per patient was 2.5 (1-9) in GK compared with 1 (1-3) in Linac. There were more radioresistant lesions (melanoma) and more lesions located in functional areas for the GK group. The median dose was 24 Gy (GK) compared with 20 Gy (Linac). The LPFS actuarial rate was as follows: for GK at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 17 months: 96.96, 96.96, 96.96, 88.1, and 81.5%, and remained stable till 32 months; for Linac at 3, 6, 12, 17, 24, and 33 months, it was 91.5, 91.5, 91.5, 79.9, 55.5, and 17.1%, respectively (p = 0.03, chi-square test). After the Cox regression analysis with shared frailty, the p-value was not statistically significant between groups. The median overall survival was 9.7 months for GK and 23.6 months for Linac group. Uni- and multivariate analysis showed a lower GPA score and noncontrolled systemic status were associated with lower OS. Cox regression analysis adjusting for these two parameters showed comparable OS rate. Conclusions: In this comparative report between GK and Linac, preliminary analysis showed that more difficult cases are treated by GK, with patients harboring more lesions, radioresistant tumors, and highly functional located. The groups look, in this sense, very heterogeneous at baseline. After a Cox frailty model, the LPFS rates seemed very similar (p < 0.05). The OS was similar, after adjusting for systemic status and GPA score (p < 0.05). The technical reasons for choosing GK instead of Linac were the anatomical location related to highly functional areas, histology, technical limitations of Linac movements, especially lower posterior fossa locations, or closeness of multiple lesions to highly functional areas optimal dosimetry with Linac

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.

An analysis of protocols and publications suggested that most discontinuations of clinical trials were not based on preplanned interim analyses or stopping rules.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency of interim analyses, stopping rules, and data safety and monitoring boards (DSMBs) in protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); to examine these features across different reasons for trial discontinuation; and to identify discrepancies in reporting between protocols and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from a cohort of RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. RESULTS: Of 894 RCT protocols, 289 prespecified interim analyses (32.3%), 153 stopping rules (17.1%), and 257 DSMBs (28.7%). Overall, 249 of 894 RCTs (27.9%) were prematurely discontinued; mostly due to reasons such as poor recruitment, administrative reasons, or unexpected harm. Forty-six of 249 RCTs (18.4%) were discontinued due to early benefit or futility; of those, 37 (80.4%) were stopped outside a formal interim analysis or stopping rule. Of 515 published RCTs, there were discrepancies between protocols and publications for interim analyses (21.1%), stopping rules (14.4%), and DSMBs (19.6%). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of RCT protocols did not consider interim analyses, stopping rules, or DSMBs. Most RCTs discontinued for early benefit or futility were stopped without a prespecified mechanism. When assessing trial manuscripts, journals should require access to the protocol.

Premature Discontinuation of Randomized Trials in Critical and Emergency Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials that enroll patients in critical or emergency care (acute care) setting are challenging because of narrow time windows for recruitment and the inability of many patients to provide informed consent. To assess the extent that recruitment challenges lead to randomized clinical trial discontinuation, we compared the discontinuation of acute care and nonacute care randomized clinical trials. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of 894 randomized clinical trials approved by six institutional review boards in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. SETTING: Randomized clinical trials involving patients in an acute or nonacute care setting. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We recorded trial characteristics, self-reported trial discontinuation, and self-reported reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, institutional review board files, and a survey of investigators. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 894 randomized clinical trials, 64 (7%) were acute care randomized clinical trials (29 critical care and 35 emergency care). Compared with the 830 nonacute care randomized clinical trials, acute care randomized clinical trials were more frequently discontinued (28 of 64, 44% vs 221 of 830, 27%; p = 0.004). Slow recruitment was the most frequent reason for discontinuation, both in acute care (13 of 64, 20%) and in nonacute care randomized clinical trials (7 of 64, 11%). Logistic regression analyses suggested the acute care setting as an independent risk factor for randomized clinical trial discontinuation specifically as a result of slow recruitment (odds ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31) after adjusting for other established risk factors, including nonindustry sponsorship and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care randomized clinical trials are more vulnerable to premature discontinuation than nonacute care randomized clinical trials and have an approximately four-fold higher risk of discontinuation due to slow recruitment. These results highlight the need for strategies to reliably prevent and resolve slow patient recruitment in randomized clinical trials conducted in the critical and emergency care setting.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. SETTING: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. PARTICIPANTS: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. INTERVENTIONS: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.