Characteristics and Research Waste Among Randomized Clinical Trials in Gastric Cancer

IMPORTANCE

The results of numerous large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have changed clinical practice in gastric cancer (GC). However, research waste (ie, unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations) is still a major challenge for evidence-based medicine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years and the presence of research waste and to explore potential targets for improvement.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study of GC RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for phase 3 or 4 RCTs registered from January 2000 to December 2019 using the keyword gastric cancer. Independent investigators undertook assessments and resolved discrepancies via consensus. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were descriptions of the characteristics of GC RCTs and the proportion of studies with signs of research waste. Research waste was defined as unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations. Publication status was determined by searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The adequacy of reporting was evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline checklist. Avoidable design limitations were determined based on existing bias or lack of cited systematic literature reviews. In the analyses of research waste, 125 RCTs that ended after June 2016 without publication were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 262 GC RCTs were included. The number of RCTs increased from 25 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 97 trials in 2015 to 2019, with a greater increase among RCTs of targeted therapy or immunotherapy, which increased from 0 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 36 trials in 2015 to 2019. The proportion of RCTs that were multicenter was higher in non-Asian regions than in Asian regions (50 of 71 RCTs [70.4%] vs 96 of 191 RCTs [50.3%]; P = .004). The analysis of research waste included 137 RCTs, of which 81 (59.1%) were published. Among published RCTs, 65 (80.2%) were judged to be adequately reported and 63 (77.8%) had avoidable design defects. Additionally, 119 RCTs (86.9%) had 1 or more features of research waste. Study settings that included blinding (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; P = .03), a greater number of participants (ie, ≥200 participants; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.51; P = .01), and external funding support (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.60; P = .004) were associated with lower odds of research waste. Additionally, 35 RCTs (49.3%) were referenced in guidelines, and 18 RCTs (22.2%) had their prospective data reused.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

To our knowledge, this study is the first to describe the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years, and it found a research waste burden, which may provide evidence for the development of rational RCTs and reduction of waste in the future.

The quality of clinical trials in neuroendocrine tumours; have we learnt from our mistakes? An evaluation of phase II and phase III clinical trials

The quality and reporting of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) clinical trials has previously been found to be heterogeneous impairing trial interpretability. We aimed to perform an updated review of the quality of phase II/III clinical trials in NET to assess if trial design and reporting have improved since 2011. We performed a PubMed search for phase II/III trials evaluating systemic anticancer therapies or liver-directed therapies published between 2011 and 2018. Data collected comprised administrative data, study population characteristics, endpoints, reporting and statistical design parameters, and results. Sixty studies were included (5218 patients): 50 phase II and 10 phase III trials. Study populations were heterogeneous: 52% of trials allowed tumours from various primary sites, 28% allowed both well- and poorly-differentiated tumour morphology or did not specify, and 57% did not report proliferative indices and/or tumour grade in ≥80% of the study population. Only 36% of trials mandated radiological disease progression on participant enrolment using a validated measure. Statistical design and primary endpoint were clearly defined in 67% and 88% of trials, respectively. Toxicity (88%), radiological response rate (85%) and progression-free survival/time to progression (82%) were well reported in a majority of trials, but health-related quality of life was included in the minority. Of the randomised trials (n = 11), study populations were more homogeneous and study design was more often clearly defined; however, only 45% mandated radiological progression at baseline as measured per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours, and reporting of health-related quality of life (55%) remained suboptimal. The design and reporting of NET clinical trials, predominantly of single-arm phase II trials, remains suboptimal and has not considerably improved over time despite the growth in our knowledge of the biology and unique characteristics of NETs. Higher quality is seen in randomised trials, although certain design and reporting elements remain inadequate in some studies. We must prioritise the design and conduct of NET clinical trials to effectively inform future research and guide practice change.

A Deferred-Vaccination Design to Assess Durability of COVID-19 Vaccine Effect After the Placebo Group Is Vaccinated

Multiple candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, and several have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. At some point after demonstration of substantial efficacy, placebo recipients should be offered the efficacious vaccine from their trial, which will occur before longer-term efficacy and safety are known. The absence of a placebo group could compromise assessment of longer-term vaccine effects. However, by continuing follow-up after vaccination of the placebo group, this study shows that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be mathematically derived by assuming that the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the original placebo recipients after their vaccination. Although this derivation provides less precise estimates than would be obtained by a standard trial where the placebo group remains unvaccinated, this proposed approach allows estimation of longer-term effect, including durability of vaccine efficacy and whether the vaccine eventually becomes harmful for some. Deferred vaccination, if done open-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates of long-term vaccine efficacy. Hence, deferred vaccination via blinded crossover, where the vaccine group receives placebo and vice versa, would be the preferred way to assess vaccine durability and potential delayed harm. Deferred vaccination allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain them on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunologic and clinical effectiveness over time.

Are randomized controlled trials being conducted with the right justification?

OBJECTIVE

It has been estimated that much of health research may be wasted, resulting in billions of dollars in wasteful research spending worldwide each year. Given the increased use of randomized trials and their influence on medicine, one method to combat research waste is to conduct randomized clinical trials (RCTs) only when a systematic review (SR) suggests more data are needed or when no previous SRs are identified. Here, we analyzed RCTs to determine whether SRs were cited as justification for conducting a trial.

METHODS

We analyzed phase III RCTs published between 2016 and 2018 in New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and JAMA. We performed duplicate and independent data extraction to ensure the accuracy and validity of our data. For each trial, we extracted whether SRs were cited as justification for conducting the clinical trial.

RESULTS

We examined 637 RCTs that cited 728 SRs. Overall, 38.1% (243/637) of RCTs cited an SR as either verbatim (6.9%, 44/637) or inferred (31.2%, 199/637) for trial justification. The 79 remaining RCTs cited SRs in other ways. Approximately, 49.5% (315/637) of RCTs did not cite a SR.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the analyzed clinical trials cited a SRs as the basis for undertaking the trial. We believe trialists should be required to present relevant SRs to an ethics or peer review committee demonstrating an unmet need prior to initiating a trial. Eliminating research waste is both a scientific and ethical responsibility.

Transforming Performance of Clinical Trials in Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes: A Consortium Model

Background: Completing phase 3 trials of new drugs for youth with type 2 diabetes is challenging. The Pediatric Diabetes Consortium (PDC) of U.S. pediatric treatment centers developed a Consortium model to improve the efficiency of successfully completing these trials. Aims and Innovations: An aim of the PDC model is to utilize the resources of the PDC Coordinating Center and Executive Committee to improve study protocols, centralize interactions with sponsors, and oversee the performance of PDC Clinical Centers. Key features include a Consulting Group to improve protocol design; Master Service Agreements between the Coordinating Center and Clinical Centers covering confidentiality agreements and contract language; negotiation of a standard Site Budget with Contract Research Organizations (CROs)/Sponsors that reflect actual Clinical Center costs; Weekly Conference Calls with CROs/sponsors to track progress of Clinical Center launches, Monthly Oversight Calls with investigators and study Coordinators to track Clinical Center performance, discuss enrollment strategies, and identify emerging problems. Successes and Challenges: The Consortium model played a key role in the completion of the pivotal trial of liraglutide for treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes. PDC centers also played a pivotal role in exceeding the projected number of randomized subjects needed by two ongoing studies that are nearing completion. Conclusions: While the Consortium model is still a work in progress, PDC has assisted in the successful launch of new type 2 diabetes studies, and negotiations are in underway for PDC participation in pediatric type 1 diabetes and other diabetes-related studies.

Real-World Data and Randomised Controlled Trials: The Salford Lung Study

Traditional efficacy double-blind randomised controlled trials (DBRCTs) measure the benefit a treatment produces under near-ideal test conditions in highly selected patient populations; however, the behaviour of patients and investigators in such trials is highly controlled, highly compliant and adherent, and non-representative of routine clinical practice. Pragmatic effectiveness trials measure the benefit a treatment produces in patients in everyday "real-world" practice. Ideally, effectiveness trials should recruit patients as similar as possible to those who will ultimately be prescribed the medicine, and create freedom within the study design to allow normal behaviours of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be expressed. The Salford Lung Study (SLS) was a world-first, prospective, phase III, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-licensed medication (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) in real-world practice using electronic health records and through collaboratively engaging general practitioners and community pharmacists in clinical research. The real-world aspect of SLS was unique, requiring careful planning and attention to the goals of maximising the external validity of the trials while maintaining scientific rigour and securing suitable electronic processes for proper interpretation of safety data. Key learnings from SLS that may inform the design of future pragmatic effectiveness RCTs include: (1) ensuring the trial setting and operational infrastructure are aligned with routine clinical care; (2) recruiting a broad patient population with characteristics as close as possible to patients in routine clinical practice, to maximise the generalisability and applicability of trial results; (3) ensuring that patients and HCPs are suitably engaged in the trial, to maximise the chances of successful trial delivery; and (4) careful study design, incorporating outcomes of value to patients, HCPs, policymakers and payers, and using pre-planned analyses to address scientifically valid research hypotheses to ensure robustness of the trial data.

How to use frailtypack for validating failure-time surrogate endpoints using individual patient data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Background and Objective

The use of valid surrogate endpoints can accelerate the development of phase III trials. Numerous validation methods have been proposed with the most popular used in a context of meta-analyses, based on a two-step analysis strategy. For two failure time endpoints, two association measures are usually considered, Kendall’s τ at individual level and adjusted R2 (adjRtrial2) at trial level. However, adjRtrial2 is not always available mainly due to model estimation constraints. More recently, we proposed a one-step validation method based on a joint frailty model, with the aim of reducing estimation issues and estimation bias on the surrogacy evaluation criteria. The model was quite robust with satisfactory results obtained in simulation studies. This study seeks to popularize this new surrogate endpoints validation approach by making the method available in a user-friendly R package.

Methods

We provide numerous tools in the frailtypack R package, including more flexible functions, for the validation of candidate surrogate endpoints using data from multiple randomized clinical trials.

Results

We implemented the surrogate threshold effect which is used in combination with Rtrial2 to make decisions concerning the validity of the surrogate endpoints. It is also possible thanks to frailtypack to predict the treatment effect on the true endpoint in a new trial using the treatment effect observed on the surrogate endpoint. The leave-one-out cross-validation is available for assessing the accuracy of the prediction using the joint surrogate model. Other tools include data generation, simulation study and graphic representations. We illustrate the use of the new functions with both real data and simulated data.

Conclusion

This article proposes new attractive and well developed tools for validating failure time surrogate endpoints.

'Optimism bias' in contemporary national clinical trial network phase III trials: are we improving?

Background

Previous studies have found that overestimating treatment effects (i.e. 'optimism bias') leads to underpowered clinical trials. The prevalence of 'optimism bias' in contemporary National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) cancer clinical trials is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of NCTN phase III randomized trials published from January 2007 to January 2017. We compared the hypothesized versus observed treatment effects in each trial, and examined whether trial-related factors were correlated with the study results. We also reviewed the methods of each protocol to assess whether a rationale for the hypothesized effect size was provided.

Results

We identified 161 clinical trials, of which 130 were eligible for analysis. Original protocols could not be located for 8 trials (5.0%). Twenty-eight trials (21.5%) observed a statistically significant difference in the primary end point favoring the experimental treatment. The median ratio of observed-to-expected hazard ratios among trials that observed a statistically significant effect on the primary end point was 1.07 (range: 0.33-1.28) versus 1.32 (range: 0.86-2.02) for trials that did not, compared with 1.34 and 1.86, respectively, for National Cancer Institute (NCI) trials published between 1955 and 2006. An effect size at least as large as the one projected in the protocol trials was observed in 9.8% of trials, compared with 17% of NCI trials published from 1955 to 2006. Most trials (64.6%) provided no rationale to support the magnitude of the proposed treatment effect in the protocol.

Conclusions

Despite a reduction in 'optimism bias' compared with previous eras, most contemporary NCTN phase III trials failed to establish statistically significant benefits of new cancer therapies. Better rationalization of proposed effect sizes in research protocols is needed.

Older-Patient-Specific Cancer Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 2,277 Patients (A151715)

BACKGROUND

Less than 3% of older patients with cancer are enrolled in clinical trials. To reverse this underrepresentation, we compared older patients enrolled with older-patient-specific trials, defined as those designed for older patients with cancer, with those enrolled in age-unspecified trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We focused on individual patient data from those ≥65 years (younger patients excluded) and included all Alliance phase III adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1985-2012.

RESULTS

Among 2,277 patients, 1,014 had been enrolled to older-patient-specific and 1,263 to age-unspecified trials. The median age (range) in the older-patient-specific trials was 72 (65-89) years compared with 68 (65-84) years in the cohort of older patients in age-unspecified trials; p < .0001. A greater percentage of patients 75 years or older had enrolled in older-patient-specific trials compared with the cohort of age-unspecified trials: 26% versus 6% (p < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-13.7) and 13.5 years (95% CI, 12.9-14.1) for older-patient-specific and age-unspecified trials, respectively. OS was comparable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.28; p = .34; referent: age-unspecified trials), after adjusting for age, estrogen receptor status, tumor size, and lymph node status. Similar findings were reached for recurrence-free survival. A lower rate of grade 3-5 adverse events (hematologic and nonhematologic) was reported in older-patient-specific trials (43% vs. 58%; p < .0001). Sensitivity analysis with chemotherapy only trials and subset analysis, adjusted for performance score, yielded similar OS results.

CONCLUSION

Older-patient-specific trials appear to address this underrepresentation of older patients with ostensibly comparable outcomes. Clinical trial identification numbers. NCT00003088 (CALGB 9741); NCT00024102 (CALGB 49907); NCT00068601 (CALGB 40401); NCT00005970 (NCCTG N9831) IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This work underscores the importance of clinical trials that focus on the recruitment of older patients with cancer.

Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines for Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Synchronous Metastatic Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has been the standard of care in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cancer who present with the tumour in place. The CARMENA trial compared systemic therapy alone with CN followed by systemic therapy. This article outlines the new guidelines based on these data. PATIENT SUMMARY: The CARMENA trial demonstrates that immediate cytoreductive nephrectomy should no longer be considered the standard of care in patients diagnosed with intermediate and poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma when medical treatment is required. However, the psychological burden poor risk patients experience hearing that removal of their primary tumour will not be beneficial, should be carefully considered.

Consensus statement on essential patient characteristics in systemic treatment trials for metastatic colorectal cancer: Supported by the ARCAD Group

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and stratification factors are key features influencing trial outcomes. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to develop a minimum set of essential baseline characteristics and stratification factors to include in such trials.

METHODS

We performed a modified, two-round Delphi survey among international experts with wide experience in the conduct and methodology of phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC.

RESULTS

Thirty mCRC experts from 15 different countries completed both consensus rounds. A total of 14 patient characteristics were included in the recommended set: age, performance status, primary tumour location, primary tumour resection, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, liver-only disease, liver involvement, surgical resection of metastases, synchronous versus metachronous metastases, (K)RAS and BRAF mutation status, microsatellite instability/mismatch repair status and number of prior treatment lines. A total of five patient characteristics were considered the most relevant stratification factors: RAS/BRAF mutation status, performance status, primary tumour sidedness and liver-only disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a minimum set of essential baseline patient characteristics and stratification factors to include in phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Inclusion of these patient characteristics and strata in study protocols and final study reports will improve interpretation of trial results and facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Phase III Preclinical Trials in Translational Stroke Research: Community Response on Framework and Guidelines

The multicenter phase III preclinical trial concept is currently discussed to enhance the predictive value of preclinical stroke research. After public announcement, we collected a community feedback on the concept with emphasis on potential design features and guidelines by an anonymous survey. Response analysis was conducted after plausibility checks by applying qualitative and quantitative measures. Most respondents supported the concept, including the implementation of a centralized steering committee. Based on received feedback, we suggest careful, stepwise implementation and to leave selected competencies and endpoint analysis at the discretion of participating centers. Strict application of quality assurance methods is accepted, but should be harmonized. However, received responses also indicate that the application of particular quality assurance models may require more attention throughout the community. Interestingly, clear and pragmatic preferences were given regarding publication and financing, suggesting the establishing of writing committees similar to large-scale clinical trials and global funding resources for financial support. The broad acceptance among research community encourages phase III preclinical trial implementation.

Centralized medical monitoring in phase III clinical trials: the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) experience

Background There is a need for data quality assurance procedures in phase III cancer trials. At the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) ‘real-time’ systems have been developed for quality assurance and study monitoring: (1) manual review and triage of data forms by data managers at the time of submission; (2) computerized edit checking of all submitted data forms; (3) systematic review of eligibility, treatment compliance and toxicity in the first 100 patients of a new protocol; (4) prospective centralized medical review of all reported serious adverse events, treatment failures, second primary cancers and deaths; (5) quarterly review and approval of study summary data files by project statistician; and (6) on-site auditing.

Purpose To assess the utility of an additional final comprehensive review of all patient records to confirm eligibility, disease status and vital status prior to manuscript submission.

Methods Four phase III NSABP studies, which had been monitored using the triagebased quality assurance program described above, were selected for analysis ( n = 7972). Charts for 5965 patients were identified that had not been previously medically reviewed for protocol events of recurrence, second primary cancer or death. Submitted source documents and data forms of these 5965 NSABP patient records underwent medical review to verify patient eligibility, disease status and vital status.

Results This final comprehensive review found no additional treatment failures or deaths, identified seven additional cases of ineligibility, was time-intensive requiring enormous use of expensive resources, and was therefore judged not to add significantly to the integrity of the database.

Limitations Our findings are influenced by the procedures the NSABP employs for quality assurance and study monitoring for Phase III clinical trials and may have limited generalizability to other settings.

Conclusion In the presence of multiple quality assurance and data monitoring systems, the rare discrepancies found between the data forms and source documentation does not support the routine use of a final comprehensive chart review for phase III trials at the NSABP Biostatistical Center.

Evaluating the Generalisability of Trial Results: Introducing a Centre- and Trial-Level Generalisability Index

BACKGROUND

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruit centres representatively, which may limit the external validity of trial results.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to propose a proof-of-concept method of assessing the generalisability of the clinical and cost-effectiveness findings of a given RCT.

METHODS

We developed a generalisability index (Gix), informed by centre-level characteristics, as a measure of centre and trial representativeness. The centre-level Gix quantifies how representative a centre is in relation to its jurisdiction, e.g. a country or health authority. The trial-level Gix quantifies how representative trial recruitment is in relation to clinical practice in the jurisdiction. Taking a real-world RCT as a case study and assuming trial-wide results to represent 'true jurisdiction values', we used simulation methods to recreate 5000 RCTs and investigate the relationship between trial representativeness, reflected by the standardised trial-Gix, and the deviation of simulated trial results from the 'true values'.

RESULTS

The simulation study provides evidence that trial results (odds ratio for the primary outcome and incremental quality-adjusted life-years) were influenced by the representativeness of the sample of recruiting centres. Simulated RCTs with the closest results to the 'true values' were those whose recruitment closely mirrored the jurisdiction-wide context. Results appeared robust to six alternative specifications of the Gix.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that an unrepresentative selection of centres limits the external validity of trial results. The Gix may be a valuable tool to help facilitate rational selection of trial centres and ensure the generalisability of results at the jurisdiction level.

Correlation of single arm versus randomised phase 2 oncology trial characteristics with phase 3 outcome

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The primary aim of this study was to determine whether randomised phase 2 (RP2) trials predict phase 3 trial outcome better than single arm phase 2 (SAP2) studies. Although theoretical superiority of RP2 trials has been postulated, no empiric studies have been conducted.

METHODS

Published phase 3 trials testing systemic cancer therapy were identified through a Medline search. Those of superiority design, which cited phase 2 trials supporting the experimental arm, were included. Trial design and outcome details were extracted. Statistical analysis was performed using the Generalized Estimating Equation method correlating phase 2 features with phase 3 outcome, accounting for any phase 3 duplication.

RESULTS

Of 189 eligible phase 3 trials, 18.5% were in haematological malignancies and 81.5% in solid tumors. The primary outcome was positive in 79 (41.8%). These were supported by 336 phase 2 trials (range 1-9 per phase 3 trial) including 66 RP2 trials. Positive phase 2 outcome, randomised or not, correlated with positive phase 3 outcome (p=0.03). RP2 studies were not superior to SAP2 studies at predicting phase 3 study success. Phase 2 trial features not predictive of phase 3 outcome included primary endpoint, sponsorship, sample size, similarity in patient population and therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

RP2 studies were not superior to SAP2 trials at predicting phase 3 study success. Further research into phase 2 trial design is required given the added resources required to conduct RP2 studies and the lack of empiric evidence supporting superiority over single arm studies.

Designing therapeutic clinical trials for older and frail adults with cancer: U13 conference recommendations

A majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths occur in patients age ≥ 65 years. With the aging of the US population, the number of older adults with cancer will grow. Although the coming wave of older patients with cancer was anticipated in the early 1980s, when the need for more research on the cancer-aging interface was recognized, many knowledge gaps remain when it comes to treating older and/or frailer patients with cancer. Relatively little is known about the best way to balance the risks and benefits of existing cancer therapies in older patients; however, these patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. Furthermore, the available clinical trials often do not include end points pertinent to the older adult population, such as preservation of function, cognition, and independence. As part of its ongoing effort to advance research in the field of geriatric oncology, the Cancer and Aging Research Group held a conference in November 2012 in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. The goal was to develop recommendations and establish research guidelines for the design and implementation of therapeutic clinical trials for older and/or frail adults. The conference sought to identify knowledge gaps in cancer clinical trials for older adults and propose clinical trial designs to fill these gaps. The ultimate goal of this conference series is to develop research that will lead to evidence-based care for older and/or frail adults with cancer.

Reporting of ethical requirements in phase III surgical trials

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of obtaining informed consent from patients (ICP) and research ethics committee (REC) approval in published reports is sometimes omitted. To date, no disclosure data are available on surgical research.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess whether REC approval and ICP were documented in surgical trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Overall, 657 randomised trials, published between 2005 and 2010 in 10 international journals, were included. We collected the report rate of REC approval and ICP and contacted the corresponding author when ethical information was lacking.

RESULTS

Among the 657 randomised controlled trials (RCT), 576 (87.7%) stated that an REC had approved the research, and 606 (92.2%) stated that ICP had been requested. Furthermore, 28 RCTs (4.3%) reported neither REC nor ICP.

CONCLUSIONS

The phase III randomised surgical trials that were analysed were shown to have respected fundamental ethical principles in approximately 90% of the cases examines.

Community consultation for prehospital research: experiences of study coordinators and principal investigators

OBJECTIVE

To assess principal investigators' and study coordinators' views and experiences regarding community consultation in a multicenter trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus conducted under an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings.

METHODS

Principal investigators and study coordinators at all 17 hubs for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding community consultation at their site for RAMPART. Major domains included 1) perceived goals of community consultation, 2) experiences with and views of community consultation methods used, 3) interactions with IRB regarding community consultation, and 4) general satisfaction and lessons learned. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for Likert scale data; relevant themes were reported for text-based data.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight individuals (16 coordinators and 12 investigators) representing all 17 RAMPART hubs completed the survey. Respondents considered multiple community consultation goals to be important, with least support for the role of community consultation in altering study design. All sites used multiple methods (median = 5). The most widely used, and generally favored, method was attending previously scheduled meetings of existing groups. Respondents expressed frustration with low attendance and responsiveness at open public meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

Coordinators and investigators in this trial viewed community consultation efforts as successful but reported real challenges generating public interest. Individuals with the condition under study were found to be more engaged and supportive of the trial. Respondents endorsed numerous potential goals of the community consultation process and often combined methods to achieve these goals.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of study-related patient information sheets in randomised neuro-oncology phase III-trials

INTRODUCTION

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), patient informed consent documents are an essential cornerstone of the study flow. However, these documents are often oversized in format and content. Clinical experience suggests that study information sheets are often not used as an aid to decision-making due to their complexity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analysed nine patient informed consent documents from clinical neuro-oncological phase III-studies running at a German Brain Tumour Centre with the objective to investigate the quality of these documents. Text length, formal layout, readability, application of ethical and legal requirements, scientific evidence and social aspects were used as rating categories. Results were assessed quantitatively by two independents investigators and were depicted using net diagrams.

RESULTS

All patient informed consent documents were of insufficient quality in all categories except that ethical and legal requirements were fulfilled. Notably, graduate levels were required to read and understand five of nine consent documents.

DISCUSSION

Quality deficits were consistent between the individual study information texts. Irrespective of formal aspects, a document that is intended to inform and motivate patients to participate in a study needs to be well-structured and understandable. We therefore strongly mandate to re-design patient informed consent documents in a patient-friendly way. Specifically, standardised components with a scientific foundation should be provided that could be retrieved at various times, adapted to the mode of treatment and the patient's knowledge, and could weigh information dependent of the stage of treatment decision.