ArticlePloS one2024
Seamless trials in oncology: A cross-sectional analysis of characteristics and reporting.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSeamless clinical trials have received much attention as a possible way to expedite drug development. The growing importance of seamless design can be seen in oncology research, especially in the early stages of drug development. Our objective is to examine the basic characteristics of seamless early-phase oncology trials registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov database and to determine their results reporting rates. We also aim to identify factors associated with results reporting.
methodsCross-sectional study. We defined seamless early-phase trials as either those registered as Phase 1/2 or Phase 1 with planned expansion cohort(s). Using the ClinicalTrials.gov registry, we searched for interventional cancer clinical trials with primary completion date (PCD) between 2016 and 2020. After trial selection, we performed manual data extraction based on the trial record description and the results posted in the trial registry. We used logistic regression to search for predictors of results reporting. Protocol: https://osf.io/m346x/.
resultsWe included 1051 seamless early-phase oncology trials reported as completed (PCD) between 2016 and 2020. We provided descriptive statistics including the number of patients enrolled, study start date, primary completion date, funding, type of intervention, cancer type, design details, type of endpoints, recruitment regions, and number of trial sites. Overall, only 34.7% trials reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. The results reporting rates for 24 months was 24.0%. The overall reporting rate for Phase 1/2 studies was over three times higher than for seamless Phase 1.
conclusionsOur study provides cross-sectional data on seamless early-phase oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. We highlight the challenges of the evolving clinical trial design landscape and the problem of missing results in the seamless design context, which raises serious ethical concerns. Efforts should be made to adapt the functionality of the ClinicalTrials.gov database to emerging clinical trial models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.