Abstract:Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are of great interest and importance in clinical practice, and many deficiencies and controversies have been noted in the reporting of irAEs. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the current status of irAE reporting in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and to attempt to explain and solve the current pitfalls associated with this reporting.We conducted a systematic review across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The RCTs that compared PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with standard treatments were included. The Harms extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) was used to evaluate the completeness of irAE reporting.A total of 44 articles and 23,759 patients were included in the analysis. The terminology of the irAEs changed over time (p = .01) and was different among immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (p = .005). Twenty-two of the studies provided a definition of irAE, but only four of them concretely addressed this definition. The incidence of any grade of irAEs ranged from 16.9% to 96%, whereas grade 3-4 irAE ranged from 2% to 23%. The RCTs with combined therapy exhibited a higher incidence of grade 3-4 irAEs (p = .012). Thirty-two studies reported irAEs in the control arms, whereas seven studies reported irAEs only in the experimental arms. Respiratory, endocrine, and gastrointestinal disorders were the most commonly reported irAEs. IrAEs were generally neglected in the introduction or conclusion sections in all of the study reviews and were never subjected to subgroup analyses. Moreover, withdrawals due to severe irAEs, as well as clarifications of the irAE collection methods, were also poorly reported. RCTs using combination therapies in the experimental arms were associated with a higher reporting quality (p = .032). However, the completeness of the reporting did not improve over the last 5 years (p = .076).The reporting of irAEs was inadequate, and there are still inconsistencies and controversies in the reporting of irAEs. In the future, authors should be encouraged to adhere to the Harms extension of the CONSORT statement.PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors profoundly changed the landscape of cancer treatment, and thousands of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were active or completed over the past decade. However, different from chemotherapy or targeted therapy, the profile of immune-related adverse effects (irAE) was unique. An understanding of irAEs is developed mainly from clinical trials; however, inconsistencies and controversies between trials were noted. This study primarily reviewed the evolution of irAE terminology and definitions and evaluated the reporting quality of each RCT. It was found that RCTs using combined immunotherapy were associated with higher quality of irAE reporting. This article identifies the controversies and deficiencies in current irAE reporting and provides possible explanations and suggestions for these inadequacies.

Quality of reporting of cranial irradiation techniques in randomized controlled trials of primary brain tumors: A systematic review

Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials evaluating immunotherapy in lung cancer

Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

Evaluation of control arm quality in recent radiation oncology randomized clinical trials.

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in pharmacotherapy for pituitary adenomas

Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Five Leading Neurology Journals in 2008 and 2013 Using the Modified "risk of Bias" Tool

Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Ophthalmic Diseases Related Randomized Controlled Trials Published in SCI Journals from Mainland China

Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

Radiotherapy quality assurance in the TROG 12.01 randomised trial and its impact on loco-regional failure

Efficacy of Stereotactic Conformal Radiotherapy vs Conventional Radiotherapy on Benign and Low-Grade Brain Tumors: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The Inconsistent and Inadequate Reporting of Immune-Related Adverse Events in PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

The Impact of Clinical Trial Quality Assurance on Outcome in Head and Neck Radiotherapy Treatment

Assessing the reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology protocols, abstracts, and trials: Adherence to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements

The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed

Radiotherapy trial quality assurance processes: a systematic review

Quality of reporting and risk of bias: a review of randomised trials in occupational health

Poster PresentationSimple Clinical Factors Associated With Radiation-Induced Lung Toxicity After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Lung Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 70 Studies: Treatment Toxicity

1134 A Call to Revise the Thirty-year-old SRS Dose Guidelines for Brain Metastases

Impact of radiotherapy quality assurance on nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Usage of a novel web-based quality assurance application

Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour