• Abdullah K Altwairgi, Ali H Alfakeeh, Wilma M Hopman, and Wendy R Parulekar.
• Comprehensive Cancer Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia drtwairqi@hotmail.com aaltwairqi@kfmc.med.sa.
• Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 Jun 1; 45 (6): 520-6.

ObjectiveThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement requires detailed reporting of interventions for randomized controlled trials. We hypothesized that there was variable reporting of chemotherapy compliance in published randomized controlled trials in breast cancer, and therefore surveyed the literature to assess this parameter and determine the study characteristics associated with reporting quality.MethodsPublished Phase III randomized controlled trials (January 2005-December 2011; English language) evaluating chemotherapy in breast cancer were identified through a systematic literature search. Articles scored 1 point each for reporting of the four measures: number of chemotherapy cycles, dose modification, early treatment discontinuation and relative dose intensity. Logistic regression identified study characteristics associated with reporting quality score of ≥ 2.ResultsOf the 115 eligible randomized controlled trials, 79 (69%) were published in high-impact journals, 66 (57%) were published since 2008, 43 (37%) reported advanced-stage disease and 37 (32%) were industry sponsored. Relative dose intensity, number of cycles, dose modification and early treatment discontinuation were reported in 70 (61%), 53 (46%), 65 (57%) and 81 (70%) articles, respectively. Eighty-two (71%) articles showed a quality score of ≥ 2; 25 (22%) articles reported all four compliance measures. Articles published since 2008 (P = 0.035) and those reporting advanced-stage disease (P < 0.001) showed significantly higher quality of compliance.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate variable reporting of chemotherapy compliance in published randomized controlled trials with a modest improvement noted in recent years. Incorporating standards for reporting chemotherapy compliance in scientific guidelines or the journal peer review process may decrease the variability and improve the quality of reporting.© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

17 keywords...

hide…