Assessing the eventual publication of clinical trial abstracts submitted to a large annual oncology meeting

Paul R. Massey, Ruibin Wang, Vinay Prasad, Susan E. Bates, Tito Fojo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Despite the ethical imperative to publish clinical trials when human subjects are involved, such data frequently remain unpublished. The objectives were to tabulate the rate and ascertain factors associated with eventual publication of clinical trial results reported as abstracts in the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology). Materials and Methods. Abstracts describing clinical trials for patients with breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer from 2009 to 2011 were identified by using a comprehensive online database (http://meetinglibrary.asco. org/abstracts). Abstracts included reported results of a treatmentor intervention assessed ina discrete, prospective clinical trial. Publication status at 426 years was determined by using a standardized search of PubMed. Primary outcomes were the rate of publication for abstracts of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Secondary outcomes included factors influencing the publication of results. Results. A total of 1,075 abstracts describing 378 randomized and 697 nonrandomized clinical trialswere evaluated. Across all years, 75% of randomized and 54% of nonrandomized trials were published,with an overall publication rate of 61%. Sample size was a statistically significant predictor of publication for both randomized and nonrandomized trials (odds ratio [OR] per increase of 100 participants 5 1.23 [1.11–1.36], p, .001; and 1.64 [1.15–2.34], p 5 .006, respectively). Among randomized studies, an industry coauthor or involvement of a cooperative group increased thelikelihood ofpublication(OR2.37, p5.013; and2.21,p5.01, respectively).Amongnonrandomizedstudies, phase II trialsweremore likely to be published than phase I (p, .001). Use of an experimental agent was not a predictor of publication in randomized (OR 0.76 [0.38–1.52]; p 5 .441) or nonrandomized trials (OR 0.89 [0.61–1.29]; p5.532). Conclusion. This is the largest reported study examining why oncology trials are not published. The data show that 426 years after appearing as abstracts, 39% of oncology clinical trials remain unpublished. Larger sample size and advanced trial phase were associated with eventual publication; among randomized trials, an industry-affiliated author or a cooperative group increased likelihood of publication. Unfortunately, we found that, despite widespread recognition of the problem and the creation of central data repositories, timely publishing of oncology clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)261-268
Number of pages8
JournalOncologist
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 17 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Publications
Clinical Trials
Odds Ratio
Sample Size
Industry
PubMed
Ovarian Neoplasms
Colorectal Neoplasms
Lung Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases
Breast Neoplasms

Keywords

  • ClinicalTrials.gov
  • Oncology clinical trials
  • Publication rates

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Assessing the eventual publication of clinical trial abstracts submitted to a large annual oncology meeting. / Massey, Paul R.; Wang, Ruibin; Prasad, Vinay; Bates, Susan E.; Fojo, Tito.

In: Oncologist, Vol. 21, No. 3, 17.02.2016, p. 261-268.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Massey, Paul R. ; Wang, Ruibin ; Prasad, Vinay ; Bates, Susan E. ; Fojo, Tito. / Assessing the eventual publication of clinical trial abstracts submitted to a large annual oncology meeting. In: Oncologist. 2016 ; Vol. 21, No. 3. pp. 261-268.
@article{b760479df77b4b6fba7b1e478ce3ffcf,
title = "Assessing the eventual publication of clinical trial abstracts submitted to a large annual oncology meeting",
abstract = "Background. Despite the ethical imperative to publish clinical trials when human subjects are involved, such data frequently remain unpublished. The objectives were to tabulate the rate and ascertain factors associated with eventual publication of clinical trial results reported as abstracts in the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology). Materials and Methods. Abstracts describing clinical trials for patients with breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer from 2009 to 2011 were identified by using a comprehensive online database (http://meetinglibrary.asco. org/abstracts). Abstracts included reported results of a treatmentor intervention assessed ina discrete, prospective clinical trial. Publication status at 426 years was determined by using a standardized search of PubMed. Primary outcomes were the rate of publication for abstracts of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Secondary outcomes included factors influencing the publication of results. Results. A total of 1,075 abstracts describing 378 randomized and 697 nonrandomized clinical trialswere evaluated. Across all years, 75{\%} of randomized and 54{\%} of nonrandomized trials were published,with an overall publication rate of 61{\%}. Sample size was a statistically significant predictor of publication for both randomized and nonrandomized trials (odds ratio [OR] per increase of 100 participants 5 1.23 [1.11–1.36], p, .001; and 1.64 [1.15–2.34], p 5 .006, respectively). Among randomized studies, an industry coauthor or involvement of a cooperative group increased thelikelihood ofpublication(OR2.37, p5.013; and2.21,p5.01, respectively).Amongnonrandomizedstudies, phase II trialsweremore likely to be published than phase I (p, .001). Use of an experimental agent was not a predictor of publication in randomized (OR 0.76 [0.38–1.52]; p 5 .441) or nonrandomized trials (OR 0.89 [0.61–1.29]; p5.532). Conclusion. This is the largest reported study examining why oncology trials are not published. The data show that 426 years after appearing as abstracts, 39{\%} of oncology clinical trials remain unpublished. Larger sample size and advanced trial phase were associated with eventual publication; among randomized trials, an industry-affiliated author or a cooperative group increased likelihood of publication. Unfortunately, we found that, despite widespread recognition of the problem and the creation of central data repositories, timely publishing of oncology clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory.",
keywords = "ClinicalTrials.gov, Oncology clinical trials, Publication rates",
author = "Massey, {Paul R.} and Ruibin Wang and Vinay Prasad and Bates, {Susan E.} and Tito Fojo",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0516",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "261--268",
journal = "Oncologist",
issn = "1083-7159",
publisher = "AlphaMed Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the eventual publication of clinical trial abstracts submitted to a large annual oncology meeting

AU - Massey, Paul R.

AU - Wang, Ruibin

AU - Prasad, Vinay

AU - Bates, Susan E.

AU - Fojo, Tito

PY - 2016/2/17

Y1 - 2016/2/17

N2 - Background. Despite the ethical imperative to publish clinical trials when human subjects are involved, such data frequently remain unpublished. The objectives were to tabulate the rate and ascertain factors associated with eventual publication of clinical trial results reported as abstracts in the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology). Materials and Methods. Abstracts describing clinical trials for patients with breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer from 2009 to 2011 were identified by using a comprehensive online database (http://meetinglibrary.asco. org/abstracts). Abstracts included reported results of a treatmentor intervention assessed ina discrete, prospective clinical trial. Publication status at 426 years was determined by using a standardized search of PubMed. Primary outcomes were the rate of publication for abstracts of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Secondary outcomes included factors influencing the publication of results. Results. A total of 1,075 abstracts describing 378 randomized and 697 nonrandomized clinical trialswere evaluated. Across all years, 75% of randomized and 54% of nonrandomized trials were published,with an overall publication rate of 61%. Sample size was a statistically significant predictor of publication for both randomized and nonrandomized trials (odds ratio [OR] per increase of 100 participants 5 1.23 [1.11–1.36], p, .001; and 1.64 [1.15–2.34], p 5 .006, respectively). Among randomized studies, an industry coauthor or involvement of a cooperative group increased thelikelihood ofpublication(OR2.37, p5.013; and2.21,p5.01, respectively).Amongnonrandomizedstudies, phase II trialsweremore likely to be published than phase I (p, .001). Use of an experimental agent was not a predictor of publication in randomized (OR 0.76 [0.38–1.52]; p 5 .441) or nonrandomized trials (OR 0.89 [0.61–1.29]; p5.532). Conclusion. This is the largest reported study examining why oncology trials are not published. The data show that 426 years after appearing as abstracts, 39% of oncology clinical trials remain unpublished. Larger sample size and advanced trial phase were associated with eventual publication; among randomized trials, an industry-affiliated author or a cooperative group increased likelihood of publication. Unfortunately, we found that, despite widespread recognition of the problem and the creation of central data repositories, timely publishing of oncology clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory.

AB - Background. Despite the ethical imperative to publish clinical trials when human subjects are involved, such data frequently remain unpublished. The objectives were to tabulate the rate and ascertain factors associated with eventual publication of clinical trial results reported as abstracts in the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology). Materials and Methods. Abstracts describing clinical trials for patients with breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer from 2009 to 2011 were identified by using a comprehensive online database (http://meetinglibrary.asco. org/abstracts). Abstracts included reported results of a treatmentor intervention assessed ina discrete, prospective clinical trial. Publication status at 426 years was determined by using a standardized search of PubMed. Primary outcomes were the rate of publication for abstracts of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Secondary outcomes included factors influencing the publication of results. Results. A total of 1,075 abstracts describing 378 randomized and 697 nonrandomized clinical trialswere evaluated. Across all years, 75% of randomized and 54% of nonrandomized trials were published,with an overall publication rate of 61%. Sample size was a statistically significant predictor of publication for both randomized and nonrandomized trials (odds ratio [OR] per increase of 100 participants 5 1.23 [1.11–1.36], p, .001; and 1.64 [1.15–2.34], p 5 .006, respectively). Among randomized studies, an industry coauthor or involvement of a cooperative group increased thelikelihood ofpublication(OR2.37, p5.013; and2.21,p5.01, respectively).Amongnonrandomizedstudies, phase II trialsweremore likely to be published than phase I (p, .001). Use of an experimental agent was not a predictor of publication in randomized (OR 0.76 [0.38–1.52]; p 5 .441) or nonrandomized trials (OR 0.89 [0.61–1.29]; p5.532). Conclusion. This is the largest reported study examining why oncology trials are not published. The data show that 426 years after appearing as abstracts, 39% of oncology clinical trials remain unpublished. Larger sample size and advanced trial phase were associated with eventual publication; among randomized trials, an industry-affiliated author or a cooperative group increased likelihood of publication. Unfortunately, we found that, despite widespread recognition of the problem and the creation of central data repositories, timely publishing of oncology clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory.

KW - ClinicalTrials.gov

KW - Oncology clinical trials

KW - Publication rates

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960474051&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960474051&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0516

DO - 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0516

M3 - Article

C2 - 26888691

AN - SCOPUS:84960474051

VL - 21

SP - 261

EP - 268

JO - Oncologist

JF - Oncologist

SN - 1083-7159

IS - 3

ER -