Evaluation of spin in oncology clinical trials

Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review

Spin, defined as the misrepresentation of the results of a study, could negate the validity of scientific findings. To explore the manifestation of spin, and identify the factors affecting spin in COVID-19 RCTs, a systematic review was performed from PubMed/Medline, National Institutes of Health, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. RCTs on pharmacotherapy for COVID-19 with nonsignificant primary outcomes published in 2020 were included. 21 abstracts (33.9%) and 28 main texts (45.2%) were found to contain spin in at least one section. In the conclusion section, other spin strategies beautifying their findings that were not included in the abstract were found in the main texts. More factors influencing the level of spin were found in abstracts than in the main texts, but most of the levels of spin in abstracts were comparable to those in the main texts. Although common factors that affected the manifestation of spin in the main texts and abstracts were the sample size and type of journal, further research to determine multicollinearity between significant factors and the manifestation of spin is required.

Spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials of nurse-led care: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Nurse-led models of care had been reported as effective intervention approaches for improving health management and reducing hospitalizations of target patients in a number of studies. However, the reporting quality of studies in the field varied and there was a lack of literature evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess the reporting quality and spin of abstracts of published randomized controlled trials which had statistically not significant primary outcomes. Moreover, potential factors associated with the presence of spin were also assessed.

METHODS

Studies on nurse-led care were retrieved from PubMed from January 1st, 2017, to December 31st, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials with statistically not significant primary outcomes were included. Study screening and data extraction were carried out by two reviewers independently. The reporting quality of each abstract was evaluated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, and spin strategies were analyzed using a pre-designed assessment form. Potential predictors for the presence of spin were analyzed by multivariate logistic regressions.

RESULTS

The overall reporting quality of the included 75 randomized controlled trial abstracts was not satisfying, with a median score of 16-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement at 6 (IQR 5, 8). Forty abstracts used at least one spin strategy in abstracts. Among them, 18 (45.0 %) used spin strategies in the result section and 39 (97.5 %) had spin in the conclusion section. The most common spin strategy identified in abstracts was focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes (12/40, 30.0 %) in the result section and claiming benefit with no consideration of statistically not significant results for the primary outcomes (32/40, 80.0 %) in the conclusion section. Based on the definition, 29 (72.5 %) abstracts were assessed to have high level of spin in the conclusions of abstracts. By multivariate logistic regression analyses, it was found that only geographic origin (reference: studies from Asian countries, OR = 0.118, 95 % CI 0.027 to 0.511, P = 0.004) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement score (reference: lower score, OR = 0.625, 95 % CI 0.470 to 0.829, P = 0.001) were significantly associated with the presence of spin in abstracts.

CONCLUSION

Among the randomized controlled trials with statistically not significant primary outcomes in the field of nurse-led care, the reporting quality of abstracts needs to be improved. Trials from Asian countries and with lower Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement scores are more likely to present spin in abstracts. Findings reported in the result and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Assessment of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Orthopaedics: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Background

Systematic reviews on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in orthopaedic surgery are abundant in current published literature. However, a beautification of results (referred to as spin) has been noted in abstracts across various aspects of medicine.

Purpose

To determine the prevalence of spin in systematic reviews of PRP-related orthopaedic surgery abstracts.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Murad and Wang guidelines, we conducted a search in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database for reviews on PRP-related orthopaedic surgery. The search included studies published from inception until June 30, 2021. Included were systematic reviews written in English that involved the use of PRP in the treatment of orthopaedic injuries in human participants. The abstracts of the included reviews were evaluated for the top 9 types of spin as described by Yavchitz et al in 2016. We determined the relationship between spin and study characteristics using odds ratios.

Results

Of an initial 1560 studies, 176 were included. We found that 50 studies (28.4%) contained at least 1 form of spin. The 2 most common forms of spin found in our sample were type 5 ("Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of treatment despite high risk of bias"; n = 27 [15.3%]) and type 3 ("Selective reporting or overemphasis of efficacy in outcomes favoring beneficial effect of intervention"; n = 18 [10.2%]). No statistical significance was found between study characteristics and the presence of spin.

Conclusion

Spin was present in 28% of the systematic reviews that covered PRP-related orthopaedic treatments. Spin was not associated with general study characteristics, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines or funding. Journals and authors should be aware of spin in articles and avoid its usage.

Quality of content reporting on two major oncology media websites: OncLive and Targeted Oncology

INTRODUCTION

Oncology media websites such as Oncology Live (OncLive) and Targeted Oncology (TargetedOnc) play an important role in the dissemination of oncology news to patients and clinicians; however, the quality of the content on these websites has not been assessed. Our study aimed to analyze content from these websites and assess financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) amongst speakers interviewed on these websites.

METHODS

Articles published on OncLive and TargetedOnc during October 2021, were prospectively captured and analyzed. The primary outcome of our study was the quality of oncology news reporting in OncLive and TargetedOnc. We assessed the FCOI amongst speakers using data from Open Payments.

RESULTS

We examined 196 articles (OncLive 108, TargetedOnc 88). Limitations of cited research were reported in 7% (7/105) of OncLive and zero TargetedOnc articles. Benefit and risks in absolute numbers were reported in 28% (28/99) of OncLive and 16% (7/45) of TargetedOnc articles. Independent experts were quoted in 47% (51/108) and 51% (44/86) of the OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively (Table 3). Pharmaceutical executives were quoted in 18% (20/108) and 11% (10/88) of OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively. No FCOI disclosures were listed or reported for any articles. The mean general payment received from industry by United States physicians was $63,861 in 2019 and $39,639 in 2020.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates low quality and potentially biased reporting of oncology news on OncLive and TargetedOnc. Careful safeguards, oversight and reporting of relevant FCOI are needed to maintain the quality and transparency of content being provided.

Design, power, and alpha levels in randomized phase II oncology trials

BACKGROUND

The statistical plan of a phase II trial should balance minimizing the premature termination of potentially beneficial therapies (i.e. false negatives) and the further, costly testing of ineffective drugs (i.e. false positives). We sought to examine the methodology, reporting, and bias in the interpretation of outcomes of phase II oncology trials in recent years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective cross-sectional analysis, we reviewed all full-length articles published on PubMed from 1 January 2021 to 20 June 2022. We searched for data regarding the sample size calculation (number, α value, power, and expected effect size), the primary and secondary outcomes and results, and the authors' conclusion of the study.

RESULTS

About 5.4% of studies (n = 10) used a statistical power that was inferior to 80%, and 16.7% (n = 34) did not indicate the level of power for the sample size calculation. Approximately 16.7% (n = 31) of studies used a one-sided α level of ≤0.025; 17.7% (n = 33) of studies used a predefined threshold (no comparator effect size or difference between groups) to determine the sample size for efficacy. The percentage of studies with a positive authors' conclusion but not meeting the primary endpoint, or the endpoint was equivocal, was 27.4% (n = 51).

CONCLUSION

Many randomized phase II studies in oncology failed to report essential data for determining sample size calculations, many did not actually use a comparator to determine efficacy even though the studies were randomized, and many had positive conclusions even though the results were indeterminate or the primary endpoint was not met.

Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Spin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study's results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional approach on June 2, 2020, to search the MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception. To meet inclusion criteria, a study was required to be a systematic review or meta-analysis pertaining to the treatment of melanoma in human subjects, and reported in English. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. We conducted a powered bivariate linear regression and calculated odds ratios for each study characteristic.

RESULTS

A total of 200 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. We identified spin in 38% (n=76) of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention), occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2 (title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings), which was not present in any included abstracts. We found that abstracts pertaining to pharmacologic interventions were 3.84 times more likely to contain spin. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source or other study characteristics and the presence of spin was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

We have found that spin is fairly common in the abstracts of systematic reviews of melanoma treatments, but the prevalence of spin in these abstracts has been declining from 1992-2020.

Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Spin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

Over 30% of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Rotator Cuff Tear Treatments Contained Spin in the Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatments for rotator cuff tears and whether various study and publishing journal characteristics were associated with the presence of spin.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for rotator cuff tears. For an article to be included, it must meet the following criteria: (1) the article must be a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis, (2) the article must pertain to the treatment of rotator cuff tears, (3) the article must only contain human subjects, and (4) the article must be accessible in English. Systematic reviews were analyzed for spin using a previously developed classification scheme in a masked, duplicate manner. Binary logistic regression was used to examine independent associations via unadjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals between the presence of spin and study characteristics.

RESULTS

Search queries returned 932 articles, of which 121 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible. A total of 36.4% (44/121) of systematic reviews contained spin. Among the general characteristics evaluated, there were no correlations with spin.

CONCLUSIONS

Spin was present in more than one-third of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering rotator cuff tear treatments. Spin was not associated with any general study or journal characteristics, which indicates that clinicians must be aware of the potential presence of spin in all such abstracts.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially abstracts of these articles, to provide succinct guidance on best practices in patient care. The presence of spin could adversely affect patient care; thus, steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on rotator cuff tear treatment.

Robustness and pragmatism of the evidence supporting the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of follicular lymphoma

Background: Results of randomized clinical trials may not be entirely applicable to clinical practice. The present manuscript aims to explore the pragmatism and robustness of the evidence that supports the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) follicular lymphoma (FL) guidelines.Methods & design: Analysis of all trials used to support positive, therapeutic, oncological recommendations in the 2020 ESMO FL guidelines. Predefined data points were extracted from each trial. Pragmatism was assessed by means of the PRECIS-2 tool, the difference in overall survival in the interventions compared and the source of funding. Robustness was assessed by means of the fragility index and the p value.Results: 28 trials were included. The full protocol or a protocol summary was provided for 12 (43%). Based on the PRECIS-2 domains, trials were considered pragmatic in organization, analysis and flexibility and explanatory in eligibility. Robustness was high, with 4/24 (17%) trials with p values between 0.05 and 0.005 and a median fragility index of 18.Conclusions: Results of trials to support ESMO recommendations in FL were robust. Pragmatism was high in some domains but modest to low in others and the pattern was similar across trials. Transparency in the publication of trial protocols was suboptimal.

Evaluating spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on cannabis use disorder

BACKGROUND

Clinicians rely upon abstracts to provide them quick synopses of research findings that may apply to their practice. Spin can exist within these abstracts that distorts or misrepresents the findings. Our goal was to evaluate the level of spin within systematic reviews (SRs) focused on the treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in May 2020. To meet inclusion criteria, publications had to be either an SR or meta-analysis related to the treatment of cannabis use. Screening and data extraction was performed in a duplicate and masked fashion. Study quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 Results: 16/24 SRs (66.7%) contained at least one form of spin in the abstract. The most common forms of spin identified were type 3-selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention (45.8%)-and type 8-the review's findings from a surrogate marker or a specific outcome to the global improvement of the disease (37.5%). No significant association between spin and intervention type, PRISMA requirements, or funding source was identified. Weak positive correlations were found between the presence of spin and abstract word count (r =.217) and between spin and AMSTAR-2 rating (r = 0.143). "Moderate" was the most common AMSTAR-2 rating (9/24, 37.5%), followed by "low" (7/24, 29.2%) and "critically low" (7/24, 29.2%). One systematic review received an AMSTAR-2 rating of "high" (1/24, 4.2%). Conclusions: Spin was common among abstracts from the SRs focused on the treatments for CUD. Higher quality studies may help reduce the overall rate as well as standardizing treatment outcomes. To facilitate this, we encourage all authors, peer-reviewers, and editors to be more aware of the various types of spin as they can help reduce the overall amount of spin seen within the literature.

What can heart failure trialists learn from oncology trialists?

Globally, there has been little change in mortality rates from cardiovascular (CV) diseases or cancers over the past two decades (1997-2018). This is especially true for heart failure (HF) where 5-year mortality rates remain as high as 45-55%. In the same timeframe, the proportion of drug revenue, and regulatory drug approvals for cancer drugs, far out paces those for CV drugs. In 2018, while cancer drugs made 27% of Food and Drug Administration drug approvals, only 1% of drug approvals was for a CV drug, and over this entire 20 year span, only four drugs were approved for HF in the USA. Cardiovascular trialists need to reassess the design, execution, and purpose of CV clinical trials. In the area of oncology research, trials are much smaller, follow-up is shorter, and targeted therapies are common. Cardiovascular diseases and cancer are the two most common causes of death globally, and although they differ substantially, this review evaluates whether some elements of oncology research may be applicable in the CV arena. As one of the most underserved CV diseases, the review focuses on aspects of cancer research that may be applicable to HF research with the aim of streamlining the clinical trial process and decreasing the time and cost required to bring safe, effective, treatments to patients who need them. The paper is based on discussions among clinical trialists, industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and patients, which took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Workshop in Washington, DC, on 8 December 2019 (https://www.globalcvctforum.com/2019 (14 September 2020)).

Assessing the pricing and benefits of oncology products: an update

Introduction: Oncology expenditure is outperforming all other health care sectors. In particular, the cost of oncology pharmaceuticals is soaring as it is fueled both by incremental costs and the introduction rate of new products. Due to the particularities of cancer as a disease, a significant multilayer of pressure is exerted toward the reimbursement of new treatments. Nevertheless, if the expenditure increase is left unattended, it may hamper the viability of any health care system worldwide.Areas covered: A literature review of the expenditure on oncology pharmaceuticals and the exploration of the root causes for the increase in expenditure was performed.Expert commentary: The surging oncology expenditure demonstrates a multi-layer causality that encompasses prices, the uncertainty of clinical trials, the specificities of cancer as a disease, and the artificial monopoly of oncology modalities. Moreover, laxity in the regulatory approval of new products was noted. In addition, the study design should be adequately justified. Finally, new reimbursement schemes, that explicitly reward and promote clinically meaningful and measurable outcomes, are also imperative.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on Tinnitus

HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to investigate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. We hypothesized that spin would be present in these articles and a significant relationship would exist between spin usage and extracted study characteristics.

BACKGROUND

Spin, the misrepresentation of study findings, can alter a clinician's interpretation of a study's results, potentially affecting patient care. Previous work demonstrates that spin is present in abstracts of randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional analysis, we conducted a systematic search using MEDLINE and Embase databases on June 2, 2020, for systematic reviews focused on tinnitus treatment. Investigators performed screening and data extraction in a masked, duplicate fashion.

RESULTS

Forty systematic reviews met inclusion criteria, and spin was identified in four of them. Spin in abstracts most frequently occurred when conclusions claimed the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies (n = 3). The other form of spin found was the conclusion claims safety based on nonstatistically significant results with a wide confidence interval (n = 1). There was no significant association between spin and any of our extracted study characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Spin was observed in 10% of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. Although this percentage may be small, we recommend that medical journals provide a more detailed framework for abstract structure and require the inclusion of risk of bias assessment results in abstracts to prevent the incorporation of spin.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Treatments for Glaucoma

PURPOSE

Spin - the misrepresentation of the study's actual findings - carries the ability to distort a reader's perception of a treatments' full benefits and risks. Recent studies have suggested that spin is common in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews focused on treatments for a variety of medical disorders. Therefore, our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to glaucoma treatments. We further assessed whether specific study characteristics were associated with spin, including the methodological quality of a study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used a cross-sectional study design searching MEDLINE and Embase databases all for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on glaucoma treatments. Each abstract was assessed for the nine most severe - severity determined by likelihood of distorting a reader's perception - types of spin that occur in systematic review abstracts. The screening and data extraction was performed in a duplicate, masked fashion. The methodological quality of each review was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) instrument. To evaluate relationships between spin, AMSTAR-2 appraisals, and other study characteristics, we used unadjusted odds ratios and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Only three of the 102 abstracts contained spin, with spin type 5 being the most prevalent. No abstracts contained spin types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8, and no association was found between the presence of spin in an abstract and any particular study characteristic. Using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal instrument, 35 (34.3%) of the studies received a methodological quality rating as high, 42 (41.2%) as moderate, 11 (10.8%) as low, and 14 (13.7%) as critically low.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that's pin is present in only a small proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of glaucoma. In comparison to studies in other fields of medicine, ophthalmology appears to be a leader in publishing systematic reviews and meta-analyses with low rates of spin occurring in the abstract.

Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis

INTRODUCTION

It is predicted that erectile dysfunction will affect around 322 million men worldwide by 2025. Because of the large volume of literature on the topic, physicians often turn to systematic reviews and meta-analyses-and particularly abstracts of such articles-for clinical guidance. Thus, it is crucial that findings are not misrepresented in abstracts. In this study, we evaluated the use of spin (ie, the misreporting of study findings by overstating or selectively reporting efficacy results, minimizing harms, or making unwarranted clinical recommendations) in the abstracts of systematic reviews on erectile dysfunction.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed using the MEDLINE and Embase databases to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for erectile dysfunction. 2 investigators independently screened the titles and abstracts from the reviews for study inclusion. Investigators analyzed the included systematic reviews for 9 of the most severe types of spin using a previously developed classification scheme and rated them for methodological quality using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate.

RESULTS

Our search returned 2,224 articles, of which 102 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the final analysis. A total of 31.4% (32/102) of systematic reviews contained spin. 8 types of spin were identified in our sample. Type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes) and type 5 (conclusion claims beneficial effect despite high risk of bias) were the most common types of spin, each occurring in 10.8% (11/102) of abstracts. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the extracted study characteristics or methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

Spin was present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering erectile dysfunction treatments. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on erectile dysfunction treatment. Reddy AK, Lulkovich K, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Sex Med 2020;9:100284.

Ethics of Pharma Clinical Trials in the Era of Precision Oncology

Pharmaceutical industry clinical trials are ethically problematic: human research subjects are being used as a means to the end of demonstrating statistically significant efficacy of novel anticancer agents to achieve regulatory registration and marketing approval. Randomized controlled trial design is inequitable since control arm patients are denied access to the postulated best treatment. Most pharma studies do not provide clinically meaningful benefit of increased overall survival and enhanced quality of life (QOL) to cohorts and are not reliably generalizable to real-world patients. Precision oncology now enables prospective identification of patients expressing a specific cancer biomarker to determine their particular eligibility for evaluation of efficiency of molecular-targeted treatments. A patient-centered approach, collecting prospective real-world data in large populations, could provide real-world evidence of cost-effective, sustained clinical benefits of survival and QOL, while preserving the ethical beneficent compact between patient and doctor.