Comparison of anticipated and actual control group outcomes in randomised trials in paediatric oncology provides evidence that historically controlled studies are biased in favour of the novel treatment

19Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Historically controlled studies are commonly undertaken in paediatric oncology, despite their potential biases. Our aim was to compare the outcome of the control group in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in paediatric oncology with those anticipated in the sample size calculations in the protocols. Our rationale was that, had these RCTs been performed as historical control studies instead, the available outcome data used to calculate the sample size in the RCT would have been used as the historical control outcome data. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken for published paediatric oncology RCTs using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database from its inception up to July 2013. Data on sample size assumptions and observed outcomes (timetoevent and proportions) were extracted to calculate differences between randomised and historical control outcomes, and a one-sample t-test was employed to assess whether the difference between anticipated and observed control groups differed from zero. Results: Forty-eight randomised questions were included. The median year of publication was 2005, and the range was from 1976 to 2010. There were 31 superiority and 11 equivalence/noninferiority randomised questions with time-to-event outcomes. The median absolute difference between observed and anticipated control outcomes was 5.0% (range: -23 to +34), and the mean difference was 3.8% (95% CI: +0.57 to +7.0; P = 0.022). Conclusions: Because the observed control group (that is, standard treatment arm) in RCTs performed better than anticipated, we found that historically controlled studies that used similar assumptions for the standard treatment were likely to overestimate the benefit of new treatments, potentially leading to children with cancer being given ineffective therapy that may have additional toxicity.

References Powered by Scopus

Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis

5079Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Third Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study

893Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Phase III study of craniospinal radiation therapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed average-risk medulloblastoma

785Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: Analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014

131Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Outcome of children with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: A meta-analysis of ITCC/SIOPEN European phase II clinical trials

70Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Early phase clinical trials of anticancer agents in children and adolescents-an ITCC perspective

66Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moroz, V., Wilson, J. S., Kearns, P., & Wheatley, K. (2014). Comparison of anticipated and actual control group outcomes in randomised trials in paediatric oncology provides evidence that historically controlled studies are biased in favour of the novel treatment. Trials, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-481

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 8

50%

Researcher 6

38%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 10

63%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 4

25%

Decision Sciences 1

6%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free