Unsatisfied Reporting Quality of Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Cancer

• Main Authors: Chen Chen, Yixin Zhou, Xuanye Zhang, Yuhong Wang, Li-na He, Zuan Lin, Tao Chen, Yongluo Jiang, Shaodong Hong, Li Zhang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-01
• Series: Frontiers in Immunology
• Subjects: reporting quality; clinical trials; immune checkpoint inhibitor; immune therapy; cancer; evaluating
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.736943/full

BackgroundMore and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.MethodsThe PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.ResultsOf the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).ConclusionImmune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.