Comparison of outcomes between Hodgkin's lymphoma patients treated in and outside clinical trials: a study based on the EORTC-Dutch late effects cohort-linked data

Studies have shown higher survival rates for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) treated within clinical trials compared to patients treated outside clinical trials. However, endpoints are often limited to overall survival (OS). In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the effect of trial participation on OS, the incidence of relapse, second cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study population consisted of patients with HL, aged between 14 and 51 years at diagnosis, who started their treatment between 1962 and 2002 at three Dutch cancer centres. Patients were either included in the EORTC Lymphoma Group trials (H1-H9) or treated according to standard guidelines at the time. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, trial participation was associated with longer OS (median OS: 29.4 years [95%CI: 27.0-31.6] for treatment inside trials versus 27.4 years [95%CI: 26.0-28.5] for treatment outside trials, p = .046), a lower incidence of relapse (HR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.63-0.98, p = .036) and a higher incidence of CVD (HR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.23-1.79, p Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio

Crossover and rechallenge with pembrolizumab in recurrent patients from the EORTC 1325-MG/Keynote-054 phase III trial, pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma

Background: In the phase III double-blind European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial, pembrolizumab improved recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in patients with stage III cutaneous melanoma with complete resection of lymph nodes. In the pembrolizumab group, the incidence of grade I–V and of grade III–V immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 37% and 7%, respectively. Methods: Patients were randomised to receive intravenous (i.v.) pembrolizumab 200 mg (N = 514) or placebo (N = 505) every 3 weeks, up to 1 year. On recurrence, patients could enter part 2 of the study: pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks up to 2 years, for crossover (those who received placebo) or rechallenge (those who had recurrence ≥6 months after completing 1-year adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy). For these patients, we present the safety profile and efficacy outcomes. Results: At the clinical cut-off (16-Oct-2020), in the placebo group, 298 patients had a disease recurrence, in which 155 (52%) crossed over (‘crossover’). In the pembrolizumab group, 297 patients completed the 1-year treatment period; 47 had a recurrence ≥6 months later, in which 20 (43%) entered the rechallenge part 2 (‘rechallenge’). In the crossover group, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7–15.2) and the 3-year PFS rate was 32% (95% CI 25–40%). Among 80 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 31 (39%) had an objective response: 14 (18%) patients with complete response (CR) and 17 (21%) patients with partial response. The 2-year PFS rate from response was 69% (95% CI 48–83%). In the rechallenge group, the median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6–NE). Among 9 patients with stage IV evaluable disease, 1 had an objective response (CR). Among the 175 patients, 51 (29%) had a grade I–IV irAE and 11 (6%) had a grade III–IV irAE. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab treatment after crossover yielded an overall 3-year PFS rate of 32% and a 39% ORR in evaluable patients, but the efficacy (11% ORR) was lower in those rechallenged

Publication and related biases in health services research: a systematic review of empirical evidence

Background: Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. Results: After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. Conclusions: Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333

Tracing data journeys through medical case reports: Conceptualizing case reports not as 'anecdotes' but productive epistemic constructs, or why zebras can be useful

Medical case reports provide an important example of data journeying: they are used to collect data and make them available for re-use to others in the field including clinicians, biomedical researchers, and health policymakers. In this paper, I explore how data journey in case reports, with particular focus on the earliest stages of the process, namely from creation and publication of case reports to the initial re-uses of them and data within them. I investigate key themes relating to case reporting and re-use, including factors which seem to smooth the path along which the data captured by a case report journey via broader citation patterns and detailed qualitative analysis of highly re-used case reports. This analysis reveals some of the key factors associated with the case reports whose data have greater amounts of journeying including publication in a general medical journal; that the data have broader implications and evidential value for topical or even urgent issues for instance in public health; and use in the case report of multiple research methods or concepts from diverse subfields. These findings along with standardization of case reporting are shown to have epistemological implications, particularly for how we understand the journeying of data.Rachel A. Anken