Abstract:Abstract Objective To examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy of pivotal randomised controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Design Cross sectional analysis. Setting European regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, and supplementary appendices. Eligibility criteria Pivotal randomised controlled trials of new cancer drugs approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2016. Main outcome measures Study design characteristics (randomisation, comparators, and endpoints); risk of bias using the revised Cochrane tool (bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result); and reporting adequacy (completeness and consistency of information in trial protocols, publications, supplementary appendices, clinical trial registry records, and regulatory documents). Results Between 2014 and 2016, the EMA approved 32 new cancer drugs on the basis of 54 pivotal studies. Of these, 41 (76%) were randomised controlled trials and 13 (24%) were either non-randomised studies or single arm studies. 39/41 randomised controlled trials had available publications and were included in our study. Only 10 randomised controlled trials (26%) measured overall survival as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, with the remaining trials evaluating surrogate measures such as progression free survival and response rates. Overall, 19 randomised controlled trials (49%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for their primary outcome. Concerns about missing outcome data (n=10) and measurement of the outcome (n=7) were the most common domains leading to high risk of bias judgments. Fewer randomised controlled trials that evaluated overall survival as the primary endpoint were at high risk of bias than those that evaluated surrogate efficacy endpoints (2/10 (20%) v 16/29 (55%), respectively). When information available in regulatory documents and the scientific literature was considered separately, overall risk of bias judgments differed for eight randomised controlled trials (21%), which reflects reporting inadequacies in both sources of information. Regulators identified additional deficits beyond the domains captured in risk of bias assessments for 10 drugs (31%). These deficits included magnitude of clinical benefit, inappropriate comparators, and non-preferred study endpoints, which were not disclosed as limitations in scientific publications. Conclusions Most pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.

Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional …

Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis

Clinical trial design and treatment effects: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled and single-arm trials supporting 437 FDA approvals of cancer drugs and indications

Real-world outcomes associated with new cancer medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: A retrospective cohort study

Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

Do Published Data in Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs Reflect the Real Picture of Efficacy and Safety?

Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials

Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

Comparison of novel oncology drugs that received dual approval from the US accelerated approval and EU conditional marketing authorisation pathways, 2006-2021: a cross-sectional study

Evaluation of Clinical Trial Designs for Novel Anticancer Drugs in China: A Cohort Study of Drugs Approved Between 2015 and 2021

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

Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study

Decision-Making at Swissmedic, the Swiss Regulatory Agency, with a Focus on (Neo)adjuvant Cancer Treatments

Representation of women in clinical trials supporting FDA‐approval of contemporary cancer therapies

Strength of Statistical Evidence for the Efficacy of Cancer Drugs: A Bayesian Re-Analysis of Trials Supporting FDA Approval.

Efficacy evaluation of anticancer agents in single-arm clinical trials: analysis of review reports from Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency

Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials: systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies

Assessment of Clinical Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 1995-2017