Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?

Lye-Yeng Wong MD , Yanli Li PhD , Irmina A. Elliott MD , Leah M. Backhus MD , Mark F. Berry MD , Joseph B. Shrager MD , Daniel S. Oh MD
{"title":"Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?","authors":"Lye-Yeng Wong MD ,&nbsp;Yanli Li PhD ,&nbsp;Irmina A. Elliott MD ,&nbsp;Leah M. Backhus MD ,&nbsp;Mark F. Berry MD ,&nbsp;Joseph B. Shrager MD ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Oh MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Randomized control trials are considered the highest level of evidence, yet the scalability and practicality of implementing randomized control trials in the thoracic surgical oncology space are not well described. The aim of this study is to understand what types of randomized control trials have been conducted in thoracic surgical oncology and ascertain their success rate in completing them as originally planned.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> database was queried in April 2023 to identify registered randomized control trials performed in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery (by any technique) as part of their treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 68 eligible randomized control trials; 33 (48.5%) were intended to examine different perioperative patient management strategies (eg, analgesia, ventilation, drainage) or to examine different intraoperative technical aspects (eg, stapling, number of ports, port placement, ligation). The number of randomized control trials was relatively stable over time until a large increase in randomized control trials starting in 2016. Forty-four of the randomized control trials (64.7%) were open-label studies, 43 (63.2%) were conducted in a single facility, 66 (97.1%) had 2 arms, and the mean number of patients enrolled per randomized control trial was 236 (SD, 187). Of 21 completed randomized control trials (31%), the average time to complete accrual was 1605 days (4.4 years) and average time to complete primary/secondary outcomes and adverse events collection was 2125 days (5.82 years).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Given the immense investment of resources that randomized control trials require, these findings suggest the need to scrutinize future randomized control trial proposals to assess the likelihood of successful completion. Future study is needed to understand the various contributing factors to randomized control trial success or failure.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624000093/pdfft?md5=31a0bb0c6d8ebbd26fb3317ddee71848&pid=1-s2.0-S2666273624000093-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624000093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Randomized control trials are considered the highest level of evidence, yet the scalability and practicality of implementing randomized control trials in the thoracic surgical oncology space are not well described. The aim of this study is to understand what types of randomized control trials have been conducted in thoracic surgical oncology and ascertain their success rate in completing them as originally planned.

Methods

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in April 2023 to identify registered randomized control trials performed in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery (by any technique) as part of their treatment.

Results

There were 68 eligible randomized control trials; 33 (48.5%) were intended to examine different perioperative patient management strategies (eg, analgesia, ventilation, drainage) or to examine different intraoperative technical aspects (eg, stapling, number of ports, port placement, ligation). The number of randomized control trials was relatively stable over time until a large increase in randomized control trials starting in 2016. Forty-four of the randomized control trials (64.7%) were open-label studies, 43 (63.2%) were conducted in a single facility, 66 (97.1%) had 2 arms, and the mean number of patients enrolled per randomized control trial was 236 (SD, 187). Of 21 completed randomized control trials (31%), the average time to complete accrual was 1605 days (4.4 years) and average time to complete primary/secondary outcomes and adverse events collection was 2125 days (5.82 years).

Conclusions

Given the immense investment of resources that randomized control trials require, these findings suggest the need to scrutinize future randomized control trial proposals to assess the likelihood of successful completion. Future study is needed to understand the various contributing factors to randomized control trial success or failure.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肺癌手术中的随机对照试验:我们做得怎么样?
目的随机对照试验被认为是最高级别的证据,但在胸部肿瘤外科领域实施随机对照试验的可扩展性和实用性却没有得到很好的描述。本研究旨在了解胸部肿瘤外科已开展了哪些类型的随机对照试验,并确定其按原计划完成试验的成功率。方法2023年4月,对ClinicalTrials.gov数据库进行了查询,以确定已注册的随机对照试验,试验对象为接受手术(任何技术)治疗的肺癌患者。结果共有68项符合条件的随机对照试验,其中33项(48.5%)旨在检查不同的围手术期患者管理策略(如镇痛、通气、引流)或检查不同的术中技术方面(如缝合、端口数量、端口放置、结扎)。随着时间的推移,随机对照试验的数量相对稳定,直到2016年随机对照试验开始大量增加。随机对照试验中有 44 项(64.7%)是开放标签研究,43 项(63.2%)在单一机构进行,66 项(97.1%)有两个臂,每项随机对照试验的平均入组患者人数为 236 人(SD,187)。在 21 项已完成的随机对照试验(31%)中,完成应计的平均时间为 1605 天(4.4 年),完成主要/次要结果和不良事件收集的平均时间为 2125 天(5.82 年)。未来的研究需要了解导致随机对照试验成功或失败的各种因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Discussion to: Salvage lung resection after immunotherapy is feasible and safe Salvage lung resection after immunotherapy is feasible and safe Identifying Asian American lung cancer disparities: A novel analytic approach Discussion to: Identifying lung cancer disparities among Asian Americans: A novel analytic approach Risk factors for thromboembolic events in pediatric patients with ventricular assist devices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1