Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study

Developing an international consensus Reporting guideline for intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: The ReFiND protocol

BACKGROUND

Inadequate reporting of fidelity to interventions in trials limits the transparency and interpretation of trial findings. Despite this, most trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions lack comprehensive reporting of fidelity. If fidelity is poorly reported, it is unclear which intervention components were tested or implemented within the trial, which also hinders research reproducibility. This protocol describes the development process of a reporting guideline for fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions (ReFiND) in the context of trials.

METHODS

The ReFiND guideline will be developed in six stages. Stage one: a guideline development group has been formed to oversee the guideline methodology. Stage two: a scoping review will be conducted to identify and summarize existing guidance documents on the fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. Stage three: a Delphi study will be conducted to reach consensus on reporting items. Stage four: a consensus meeting will be held to consolidate the reporting items and discuss the wording and structure of the guideline. Stage five: a guidance statement, an elaboration and explanation document, and a reporting checklist will be developed. Stage six: different strategies will be used to disseminate and implement the ReFiND guideline.

DISCUSSION

The ReFiND guideline will provide a set of items developed through international consensus to improve the reporting of intervention fidelity in trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. This reporting guideline will enhance transparency and reproducibility in future non-drug, non-surgical intervention research.

Handling Incomplete or Late-Onset Toxicities in Early-Phase Dose-Finding Clinical Trials: Current Practice and Future Prospects

PURPOSE

The way late-onset toxicities are managed can affect trial outcomes and participant safety. Specifically, participants often might not have completed their entire follow-up period to observe any toxicities before new participants would be recruited. We conducted a methodological review of published early-phase dose-finding clinical trials that used designs accounting for partial and complete toxicity information, aiming to understand (1) how such designs were implemented and reported and (2) if sufficient information was provided to enable the replicability of trial results.

METHODS

Until March 26, 2023, we identified 141 trials using the rolling 6 design, the time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TITE-CRM), the TITE-CRM with cycle information, the TITE Bayesian optimal interval design, the TITE cumulative cohort design, and the rapid enrollment design. Clinical settings, design parameters, practical considerations, and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) information were extracted from these published trials.

RESULTS

The TITE-CRM (61, 43.3%) and the rolling 6 design (76, 53.9%) were most frequently implemented in practice. Trials using the TITE-CRM had longer DLT assessment windows beyond the first cycle compared with the rolling 6 design (52.5% v 6.6%). Most trials implementing the TITE-CRM (91.8%, 56 of 61) failed to describe essential parameters in the protocols or the study result papers. Only five TITE-CRM trials (8.2%, 5 of 61) reported sufficient information to enable replication of the final analysis.

CONCLUSION

When compared with trials using the rolling 6 design, those implementing the TITE-CRM design exhibited notable deficiencies in reporting essential details necessary for reproducibility. Inadequate reporting quality of advanced model-based trial designs hinders their credibility. We provide recommendations that can improve transparency, reproducibility, and accurate interpretation of the results for such designs.

Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review

Background

Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs).

Methods

DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions.

Findings

Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally.

Interpretation

This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting.

Funding

EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.