Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review

Author:

Alrawabdeh Jawad1,Alzu'bi Marah1,Alzyoud Muntaser1,Odeh Nada1,Hamadneh Yazan1,Mian Hira2,Mohyuddin Ghulam Rehman3,Kelkar Amar H45,Goodman Aaron M6,Chakraborty Rajshekhar7,Russler-Germain David A8,Mehra Nikita9,Baggio Diva10,Cliff Edward R Scheffer511,Al Hadidi Samer12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Medicine, University of Jordan , Amman, Jordan

2. Department of Oncology, McMaster University , Hamilton, ON, Canada

3. University of Utah , Salt Lake City, UT, USA

4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute , Boston, MA, USA

5. Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, USA

6. University of California San Diego , La Jolla, CA, USA

7. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, NY, USA

8. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine , St. Louis, MO, USA

9. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA) , Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

10. Peter MacCallum Cancer Center , Parkville, VIC, Australia

11. Program on Regulation, Therapeutics and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA, USA

12. Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, AR, USA

Abstract

Abstract Background Subgroup analyses in clinical trials assess intervention effects on specific patient subgroups, ensuring generalizability. However, they are usually only able to generate hypotheses rather than definitive conclusions. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of post hoc subgroup analysis in oncology. Methods We systematically reviewed published subgroup analyses from 2000 to 2022. We included articles presenting secondary, post hoc, or subgroup analyses of interventional clinical trials in oncology, cancer survivorship, or cancer screening, published separately from the original clinical trial publication. We collected cancer type, year of publication, where and how subgroup analyses were reported, and funding. Results Out of 16 487 screened publications, 1612 studies were included, primarily subgroup analyses of treatment trials for solid tumors (82%). Medical writers contributed to 31% of articles, and 58% of articles reported conflicts of interest. Subgroup analyses increased significantly over time, with 695 published between 2019 and 2022, compared to 384 from 2000 to 2014. Gastrointestinal tumors (25%) and lymphoid lineage tumors (39%) were the most frequently studied solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. Industry funding and reporting of conflicts of interest increased over time. Subgroup analyses often neglected to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Most authors were from high-income countries, most commonly North America (45%). Conclusions This study demonstrates the rapidly growing use of post hoc subgroup analysis of oncology clinical trials, revealing that the majority are supported by pharmaceutical companies, and they frequently fail to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Given the known methodological limitations of subgroup analyses, caution is recommended among authors, readers, and reviewers when conducting and interpreting these studies.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3