• Saurav Ghimire, Eunjung Kyung, and Eunyoung Kim.
• Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, 305-764, South Korea.
• Lung. 2013 Aug 1; 191 (4): 313-9.

BackgroundThe methodology of conducting clinical trials in lung cancer has been challenged by the particular characteristics of new targeted agents. Thus, the choice of correct outcome measures and selection of best study designs are essential. We assessed the trends in reporting of outcome measures in phase II and phase III trials conducted in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.MethodsData from September 2000 to September 2012 were extracted from the ClinicalTrials.gov database, and a descriptive-comparative analysis was performed to evaluate outcome-measures reporting for the two phases.ResultsWe identified 459 phase II and 128 phase III trials that met our inclusion criteria. The frequently reported primary outcomes in phase II trials were progression-free survival (PFS; 32%), response rate (RR; 21.4%), and safety and toxicity (adverse events [AEs]; 14.6%). In contrast, overall survival (OS; 60.9%) and PFS (26.6%) were frequently reported primary outcomes in phase III trials. AEs were reported as a secondary outcome measure in 50.1 and 64.8% of phase II and phase III trials, respectively. Improvement in quality of life was identified as a secondary outcome measure significantly more frequently in phase III than in phase II trials.ConclusionsOur study identified recent trends in reports of outcome measures in advanced-stage NSCLC phase II and phase III trials. The outcomes of this study can be valuable for investigators with minimal or some experience in the field of oncology who are conducting clinical research.

37 keywords...

hide…