Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review.
Journal
JNCI cancer spectrum
ISSN: 2515-5091
Titre abrégé: JNCI Cancer Spectr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721827
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Oct 2023
31 Oct 2023
Historique:
accepted:
17
11
2023
received:
13
08
2023
revised:
23
10
2023
medline:
20
12
2023
pubmed:
26
11
2023
entrez:
25
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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%). 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38006333
pii: 7451019
doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkad100
pmc: PMC11025370
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
Lancet Haematol. 2023 May;10(5):e314-e317
pubmed: 37142342
Lancet. 2000 Mar 25;355(9209):1064-9
pubmed: 10744093
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 12;379(2):111-121
pubmed: 29860917
J Clin Oncol. 2015 May 20;33(15):1697-702
pubmed: 25897150
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 22;357(21):2189-94
pubmed: 18032770
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Nov 1;27(21):5753-5756
pubmed: 34117032
BMJ. 2015 Nov 04;351:h5651
pubmed: 26537915
Lancet. 2005 Jan 8-14;365(9454):176-86
pubmed: 15639301
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Jul;87(7):2635-2644
pubmed: 33270263
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jun 1;6(6):926-927
pubmed: 32297907
ESMO Open. 2022 Dec;7(6):100593
pubmed: 36228332
J Clin Oncol. 2023 May 20;41(15):2706-2712
pubmed: 36930853
JAMA. 1991 Jul 3;266(1):93-8
pubmed: 2046134
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Dec;21(12):1630-1642
pubmed: 33129376