Rates of Discontinuation and Nonpublication of Head and Neck Cancer Randomized Clinical Trials

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in clinical decision-making, and discontinuation or nonpublication of these trials are causes of great concern. The extent of discontinued or unpublished RCTs about head and neck cancer remains unclear. OBJECTIVE To assess the rate of discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs involving patients with head and neck cancer. This objective was measured by observing 3 domains: discontinuation of trial, nonpublication of trial data, and feasibility of contacting trial investigators of aforementioned trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW For this study, the sample was derived using the ClinicalTrials.gov advanced search feature on March 18, 2019, to locate completed and discontinued RCTs pertaining to head and neck cancer registered before this date. Trials were analyzed to identify reasons for trial discontinuation and publication status of each trial. If publication status or reason for trial discontinuation was not allocated through the systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov, the corresponding author was emailed to determine publication status. FINDINGS After exclusions, 130 RCTs were included. Of these trials, 92 (70.8%) were completed and 38 (29.2%) were discontinued for various reasons. The most common reason for discontinuation of trials was committee recommendations. Of the 130 analyzed trials, 67 (51.5%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 63 (48.5%) were unpublished trials. Of the 92 completed trials, 55 (59.8%) were published and 37 (40.2%) remained unpublished 3 or more years after trial completion. Trials funded by other sources (private, nonprofit, or the National Institutes of Health) were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded RCTs (unadjusted odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 1.3-14.0]; adjusted odds ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 1.2-14.3]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Of RCTs in head and neck cancer, 29.2% were discontinued and 40.2% completed trials never reached publication. The findings suggest that needs exist for RCT guidance of head and neck cancer. The reporting of reasons for trial discontinuation appears to be lacking, and trial publication rates were low. This study is relevant to many physicians and researchers because it identifies potential sources of decreased research productivity and ethics.

Publication Bias in Gastrointestinal Oncology Trials Performed over the Past Decade

“…In the past decade, industry-funded trials (those supported by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies) have become more prevalent [19]. A recent analysis of oncology RCTs from the 1990s to 2015 suggested industry trials are more likely to accrue [20], whereas in contrast, a specialty-specific study identified industry-funded trials were nearly four times less likely to publish their results [21]. Although there is concern regarding sponsorship bias, this was not identified in GI malignancy literature from the past decade, and the most significant threat found in this arena is nonpublication bias.…”

Clinical trials in otology: Examining trends and framework for prioritization

“…Some potential causes include recruitment failure, trial adverse events and institutional staff changes. In a study by Briel M et al., there were 28 reasons for recruitment failure with the most common being overestimation of prevalence of eligible participants and prejudiced views of recruiters and participants ( Briel et al., 2016 ; Johnson et al., 2019 ). Therefore, clinical trials should plan protocols carefully to avoid waste of medical resources.…”

Outcomes of Clinical Trials on Osteonecrosis of the Jaw

“…Unpublished research hinders medical advancement. Discoveries should be reported regardless of the results [1], and publication bias may lead to false and inappropriate conclusions [2]. Unpublished or incomplete clinical trials also waste research dollars that could have otherwise been allocated to other more fruitful efforts.…”