Background Qualitative checklists for phase III trials have been proposed, to improve the reporting of such trials and to assess the validity of their results.
Purpose Our objective was to develop such a scale for phase I cancer trials.
Methods From a review of existing guidelines and checklists for phase III clinical trials, a staff team was responsible for the first selection of items and the construction of the questionnaire. The proposed quality assessment measures were rated by the survey respondents comprised of phase I research clinicians and statisticians on a 4-point Likert scale. Selected items from the quantitative analysis of the questionnaires were reviewed by an expert team who was responsible for providing the final items list. This was then applied to 103 recently published cancer phase I trials.
Results Of the 48 initial items proposed by the staff team, 17 were selected from the quantitative analysis of the 99 participants' ratings. After qualitative analysis by the expert team, a 15-item checklist was derived, with 5 items related to trial objective, 5 to design, and 5 to analysis. The application to 103 recent journal articles on phase I cancer trials evaluating cytotoxic drugs showed on average the report of 10 items (range: 6—13) with 4 items reported in more than 95% of papers, while 2 were poorly reported.
Limitations The response rate of participants was 20.7%.
Conclusions A quality assessment checklist was developed for improved critical appraisal of the reporting of cytotoxic, dose-finding phase I oncology trials. This may be a first step toward a minimum standard of quality measures for all phase I clinical trial reports. Clinical Trials 2008; 5: 478—485. http://ctj.sagepub.com
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Storer B.Phase I trials. In Redmond, T. C.a.C. (ed.), Biostatistics in clinical trials John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 2001, pp. 337-342.
2.
Emanuel EJA phase I trial on the ethics of phase I trials. J Clin Oncol1995; 13(5): 1049-51.
3.
Agrawal M., Emanuel EJEthics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data. Jama2003; 290(8): 1075-82.
4.
Ratain MJ, Mick R., Schilsky RL, Siegler M.Statistical and ethical issues in the design and conduct of phase I and II clinical trials of new anticancer agents. J Natl Cancer Inst1993; 85(20): 1637-43.
5.
Korn EL, Arbuck SG, Pluda JM et al. Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents: are new approaches needed? J Clin Oncol2001; 19(1): 265-72.
6.
O'Quigley J. , Pepe M., Fisher L.Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase 1 clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics1990; 46(1): 33-48.
7.
Eisenhauer EA , O'Dwyer PJ, Christian M., Humphrey JSPhase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. J Clin Oncol2000; 18(3): 684-92.
8.
Zhou Y.Choice of designs and doses for early phase trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol2004; 18(3): 373-8.
9.
Horstmann E. , McCabe MS, Grochow L., Yamamoto S. et al. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med2005 ; 352(9): 895-904.
10.
Roberts Jr TG, Goulart BH, Squitieri L., Stallings SC et al. Trends in the risks and benefits to patients with cancer participating in phase 1 clinical trials. Jama2004; 292(17): 2130-40.
11.
Chang SM, Reynolds SL, Butowski N. et al. GNOSIS: guidelines for neuro-oncology: standards for investigational studies-reporting of phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials. Neuro Oncol2005; 7(4): 425-34.
12.
Camacho LH, Bacik J., Cheung A., Spriggs DRPresentation and subsequent publication rates of phase I oncology clinical trials. Cancer2005; 104(7): 1497-504.
13.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D., Jenkinson C. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials1996; 17(1): 1-12.
14.
Verhagen AP , de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol1998; 51(12): 1235-41.
15.
Ioannidis JP , Lau J.Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. Jama2001; 285(4): 437-43.
16.
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D., Egger M. et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2001; 134(8): 663-94.
17.
Downs SH, Black N.The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions . J Epidemiol Community Health1998; 52(6): 377-84.
18.
Sung L., Hayden J., Greenberg M. L. et al. Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical study. J Clin Epidemiol2005; 58(3): 261-8.
19.
Linstone HA and Turoff M.The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Electronic edition of the book published in 1975, Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff edition, 2002.
20.
Chalmers TC , Smith Jr H., Blackburn B., Silverman B. et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials1981; 2(1): 31-49.
21.
Moher D., Schulz KF, Altman DGThe CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet2001; 357(9263): 1191-4.
22.
Pubmed Central. www.pubmed.org, 2005.
23.
R Development Core Team.A language and environnement for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org, 2005.
24.
Strevel EL, Chau NG, Pond GR, Murgo AJ et al. Improving the quality of abstract reporting for phase I cancer trials. Clin Cancer Res2008; 14(6): 1782-7.
25.
Lévy V. , Zohar S., Porcher R., Chevret S.Alternate designs for conduct and analysis of phase I cancer trials. Blood2001; 98(4): 1275-6.
26.
O'Quigley J. , Zohar S.Experimental designs for phase I and phase I/II dose-finding studies. Br J Cancer2006 .
27.
Paoletti X. , Baron B., Schoffski P., Fumoleau P. et al. Using the continual reassessment method: Lessons Learned from an EORTC phase I dose finding study. Eur J Cancer2006; 42(10): 1362-8.
28.
Kang SH, Ahn C.The expected toxicity rate at the maximum tolerated dose in the standard phase I cancer clinical trial design. Drug Information Journal2001; 35(4): 1189-1200.
29.
Lin Y., Shih WJStatistical properties of the traditional algorithm-based designs for phase I cancer clinical trials. Biostatistics2001 ; 2(2): 203-15.
30.
Reiner E., Paoletti X., O'Quigley J.Operating characteristics of the standard phase I clinical trial design . Computational Statistics and Data Analysis1999; 30: 303-315.
31.
Ivanova A.Escalation, group and A + B designs for dose-finding trials. Stat Med2006; 25(21): 3668-78.
32.
Durham SD, Flournoy N., Rosenberger WFA random walk rule for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics1997; 53(2): 745-60.
