Treatment group-specific inferences in Phase III Randomized Oncology Trials

Authors

  • Alexander D. Sherry Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
  • Adina H. Passy Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
  • Joseph Abi Jaoude Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
  • Timothy A. Lin Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
  • Ramez Kouzy Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
  • Pavlos Msaouel Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
  • Ethan B. Ludmir Department of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42663

Keywords:

random sampling, convenience samples, estimation, uncertainty, confidence intervals

Abstract

Background: Estimation of comparative treatment effects between randomized groups is well-supported in randomized trials. By contrast, treatment group-specific inferences are challenging, as patients are selectively chosen for enrollment, and such inferences are formally discouraged by the CONSORT guidelines. The present study is the first-large scale assessment of the proportion of phase III oncology trials that present treatment group-specific inferences.

Methods: Published phase III randomized oncology trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov. Treatment group-specific inferences were defined by the presence of 95% CI or standard error for treatment-specific outcomes.

Results: A total of 774 phase III trials enrolling 568,080 patients were included. Treatment group-specific inferences were present in 58% of trials (446 of 774), and appeared to be increasing over time (adjusted odds ratio for the publication year, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.17; p < 0.0001). Of the remaining 328 trials, 49 (6%) described group-specific outcomes with measures of variability, such as interquartile range, and 279 (36%) provided point estimates only (e.g., median) for group outcomes.

Interpretation: The majority of published phase III oncology trials present treatment group-specific inferences. However, this inference lacks statistical support, as patients are not randomly sampled from the underlying population, and conflicts with CONSORT guidelines. While ongoing methodological efforts to improve the transportability of treatment group-specific inferences are promising, conventional attempts to generalize treatment-specific outcomes from randomized trials may be misleading. Instead of inference, treatment group-specific outcomes should be described using measures of variability.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Senn SJ. Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):467–75.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780080410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780080410

Msaouel P, Lee J, Thall PF. Interpreting randomized controlled trials. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(19):4674.

https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194674 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15194674

Rosenberger WF, Uschner D, Wang Y. Randomization: the forgotten component of the randomized clinical trial. Stat Med. 2019;38(1):1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7901 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7901

Sherry AD, Msaouel P, Ludmir EB. A meta-epidemiological

analysis of post-hoc comparisons and primary endpoint interpretability among randomized noncomparative trials in clinical medicine. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;175:111540.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111540 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111540

Templeton AJ, Booth CM, Tannock IF. Informing patients about expected outcomes: the efficacy-effectiveness gap. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15):1651–1654.

https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02035

Senn S. Comment on “Using randomization tests to address disruptions in clinical trials: a report from the NISS Ingram Olkin Forum series on unplanned clinical trial disruptions”. Stat Biopharm Res. 2024;16(4):414–416.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2024.2375232 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2024.2375232

Elfil M, Negida A. Sampling methods in clinical research; an educational review. Emergency (Tehran). 2017;5(1):e52.

Senn S. Controversies concerning randomization and additivity in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2004;23(24):3729–53.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2074 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2074

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ,

et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869

Sherry AD, Corrigan KL, Kouzy R, Abi Jaoude J, Yang Y, Patel RR, et al. Prevalence, trends, and characteristics of trials investigating local therapy in contemporary phase 3 clinical cancer research. Cancer. 2023;129(21):3430–8.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34929 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34929

Textor J, van der Zander B, Gilthorpe MS, Liskiewicz M, Ellison GT.

Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package ‘dagitty’. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1887–94.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw341 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw341

Msaouel P. The role of sampling in medicine. Harvard Data Sci Rev. 2023;5(3).

https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.bc6818d3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.bc6818d3

Rothman KJ, Gallacher JE, Hatch EE. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):1012–4.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys223 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys223

Greenland S. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology. 1990;1(6):421–9.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199011000-00003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199011000-00003

Cramer-van der Welle CM, Verschueren MV, Tonn M, Peters B, Schramel F, Klungel OH et al. Real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results of immunotherapy in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the Netherlands. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):6306.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85696-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85696-3

NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma V.3.2024. [cited 2024 Aug 7] Available from https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/pancreatic.pdf.

Suker M, Beumer BR, Sadot E, Marthey L, Faris JE, Mellon EA, et al. FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(6):801–10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00172-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00172-8

Wainberg ZA, Melisi D, Macarulla T, Cid RP, Chandana SR, Fouchardière C, et al. NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2023;402(10409):1272–81.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01366-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01366-1

Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Transportability of causal effects: completeness results. Proc AAAI Conf Artificial Intelligence. 2021;26(1):698–704.

https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8232 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8232

Dahabreh IJ, Robertson SE, Steingrimsson JA, Stuart EA, Hernán MA. Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a new target population. Stat Med. 2020;39(14):1999–2014.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8426 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8426

Meng X-L. Statistical paradises and paradoxes in big data (I): law of large populations, big data paradox, and the 2016 US presidential

election. Ann Appl Stat. 2018;12(2):685–726, 42.

https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOAS1161SF DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOAS1161SF

Bailey M. A new paradigm for polling. Harvard Data Sci Rev. 2023;5(3).

https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.9898eede DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.9898eede

Dahabreh IJ, Hernán MA. Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a target population. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019;34(8):719–22.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00533-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00533-2

Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(27):7345–52.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510507113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510507113

Dahabreh IJ, Stuart E. PCORI final research reports. Methods to apply results from randomized trials to patients in clinical practice. Washington, DC: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25302/07.2021.ME.150227794

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2025-03-24

How to Cite

Sherry, A. D., Passy, A. H., Abi Jaoude, J., Lin, T. A., Kouzy, R., Msaouel, P., & Ludmir, E. B. (2025). Treatment group-specific inferences in Phase III Randomized Oncology Trials. Acta Oncologica, 64, 470–474. https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42663

Issue

Vol. 64 (2025): Acta Oncologica

Section

Short report

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Alexander D. Sherry, Adina H. Passy, Joseph Abi Jaoude, Timothy A. Lin, Ramez Kouzy, Pavlos Msaouel, Ethan B. Ludmir

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.