Vol 15, No 2 (2019)
Review paper
Published online: 2019-05-17
Critical appraisal of clinical trials in oncology — part I
Oncol Clin Pract 2019;15(2):89-103.
Abstract
The main concept of evidence-based medicine is that all therapeutic decisions should be based on results from relevant, credible, and up-to-date clinical trials. Availability of a publication presenting a description of a clinical trial conducted with reliable methods and its high-quality results seems to be an ideal situation from the practitioner’s point of view. However, reading only the abstract or just the author’s conclusions may not always be sufficient to make the right clinical decision. For this purpose, several aspects of the clinical trial should be put under assessment, namely the methodology, its quality, internal and external credibility, clinical and statistical significance, as well as consistency of the results. The ability to perform the proper assessment of clinical trials may prove to be very helpful for practicing oncologists, especially in the case of new, emerging therapies, specific clinical situations, or when salvage treatment is necessary. It is also worth emphasising that the outcome assessment in oncology trials is specific, mainly due to the role of the survival analysis, which is relatively difficult to interpret. In this paper we tried to present in a clear and intelligible way the theoretical basis and subsequent steps in the critical appraisal of methods and results of clinical trials in oncology.
Keywords: oncologyrandomised clinical trialcritical appraisalstatistical analysissurvival analysis
References
- Govani SM, Higgins PD. How to read a clinical trial paper: a lesson in basic trial statistics. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2012;8(4):241-8. PubMed PMID: 22723755; PubMed Central PMCID. : PMCPMC3380258.
- Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, et al. Assessing the Gold Standard--Lessons from the History of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(22): 2175–2181.
- Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Stone GW. Design of Major Randomized Trials: Part 3 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(24): 2757–2766.
- Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008; 336(7644): 601–605.
- Poolman RW, Struijs PAA, Krips R, et al. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(3): 550–558.
- Jadad A, Moore R, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. 1996; 17(1): 1–12.
- Higgins JPT GSe. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 [updated June 2017]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
- Pocock SJ, McMurray JJV, Collier TJ. Making Sense of Statistics in Clinical Trial Reports: Part 1 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(22): 2536–2549.
- Health Technology Assessment Guidelines. The Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System. 2016. Version 3.0:[Available from: http://www.aotm.gov.pl/www/wp-content/uploads/wytyczne_hta/2016/20161104_HTA_Guidelines_AOTMiT.pdf.
- Li L, Pan Z. Progression-Free Survival and Time to Progression as Real Surrogate End Points for Overall Survival in Advanced Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 37 Trials. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018; 18(1): 63–70.
- Panasiuk AWR, Budasz-Świderska M, Kaczor M. Cancer immunotherapy in second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer – is there a need to change the approach to the assessment of clinical benefits? Journal of Helath Policy & Outcomes Research. 2017; 2(2): 65–77.
- Wilson MK, Collyar D, Chingos DT, et al. Outcomes and endpoints in cancer trials: bridging the divide. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(1): e43–e52.
- Wilson MK, Karakasis K, Oza AM. Outcomes and endpoints in trials of cancer treatment: the past, present, and future. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(1): e32–e42.
- Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Stone GW. Challenging Issues in Clinical Trial Design: Part 4 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(25): 2886–2898.
- Mauri L, D'Agostino RB. Challenges in the Design and Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(14): 1357–1367.
- West CP, Dupras DM. 5 ways statistics can fool you--tips for practicing clinicians. Vaccine. 2013; 31(12): 1550–1552.
- Elwood JM. Interpreting clinical trial results: seven steps to understanding. Can Med Assoc J. 1980; 123(5): 343–345.
- Case LD, Kimmick G, Paskett ED, et al. Interpreting measures of treatment effect in cancer clinical trials. Oncologist. 2002; 7(3): 181–187.
- Pocock SJ, Travison TG, Wruck LM. How to interpret figures in reports of clinical trials. BMJ. 2008; 336(7654): 1166–1169.
- Goel MK, Khanna P, Kishore J. Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier estimate. Int J Ayurveda Res. 2010; 1(4): 274–278.
- Fendler WCJ, Młynarski W. Methods of survival analysis applied in oncology — assumptions, methods and common pitfalls. Onkologia w Praktyce Klinicznej. 2011; 7(2): 89–101.
- Barraclough H, Simms L, Govindan R. Biostatistics primer: what a clinician ought to know: hazard ratios. J Thorac Oncol. 2011; 6(6): 978–982.
- Pocock SJ, McMurray JJV, Collier TJ. Statistical Controversies in Reporting of Clinical Trials: Part 2 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(23): 2648–2662.
- Panasiuk AHM, Pawlik D, Prząda-Machno P, et al. Approach to uncertainty in health technology assessment in a Central and Eastern European country: appraisal of cancer drugs by a Polish HTA agency in presence of high crossover rates in clinical trials. Journal of Helath Policy & Outcomes Research. 2016; 10(2): 17–34.
- Haslam A, Prasad V. When is crossover desirable in cancer drug trials and when is it problematic? Ann Oncol. 2018; 29(5): 1079–1081.