Cargando…

The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer

PURPOSE: None of the key randomised trials on the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in sentinel lymph-positive breast cancer have reported external validity, even though results indicate selection bias. Our aim was to assess the external validity of the ongoing randomised SENOMAC tri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Boniface, Jana, Ahlgren, Johan, Andersson, Yvette, Bergkvist, Leif, Frisell, Jan, Lundstedt, Dan, Olofsson Bagge, Roger, Rydén, Lisa, Sund, Malin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7031168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31989379
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05537-1
_version_ 1783499317608185856
author de Boniface, Jana
Ahlgren, Johan
Andersson, Yvette
Bergkvist, Leif
Frisell, Jan
Lundstedt, Dan
Olofsson Bagge, Roger
Rydén, Lisa
Sund, Malin
author_facet de Boniface, Jana
Ahlgren, Johan
Andersson, Yvette
Bergkvist, Leif
Frisell, Jan
Lundstedt, Dan
Olofsson Bagge, Roger
Rydén, Lisa
Sund, Malin
author_sort de Boniface, Jana
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: None of the key randomised trials on the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in sentinel lymph-positive breast cancer have reported external validity, even though results indicate selection bias. Our aim was to assess the external validity of the ongoing randomised SENOMAC trial by comparing characteristics of Swedish SENOMAC trial participants with non-included eligible patients registered in the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register (NKBC). METHODS: In the ongoing non-inferiority European SENOMAC trial, clinically node-negative cT1–T3 breast cancer patients with up to two sentinel lymph node macrometastases are randomised to undergo completion ALND or not. Both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are eligible interventions. Data from NKBC were extracted for the years 2016 and 2017, and patient and tumour characteristics compared with Swedish trial participants from the same years. RESULTS: Overall, 306 NKBC cases from non-participating and 847 NKBC cases from participating sites (excluding SENOMAC participants) were compared with 463 SENOMAC trial participants. Patients belonging to the middle age groups (p = 0.015), with smaller tumours (p = 0.013) treated by breast-conserving therapy (50.3 versus 47.1 versus 65.2%, p < 0.001) and less nodal tumour burden (only 1 macrometastasis in 78.8 versus 79.9 versus 87.3%, p = 0.001) were over-represented in the trial population. Time trends indicated, however, that differences may be mitigated over time. CONCLUSIONS: This interim external validity analysis specifically addresses selection mechanisms during an ongoing trial, potentially increasing generalisability by the time full accrual is reached. Similar validity checks should be an integral part of prospective clinical trials. Trial registration: NCT 02240472, retrospective registration date September 14, 2015 after trial initiation on January 31, 2015
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7031168
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70311682020-03-03 The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer de Boniface, Jana Ahlgren, Johan Andersson, Yvette Bergkvist, Leif Frisell, Jan Lundstedt, Dan Olofsson Bagge, Roger Rydén, Lisa Sund, Malin Breast Cancer Res Treat Clinical Trial PURPOSE: None of the key randomised trials on the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in sentinel lymph-positive breast cancer have reported external validity, even though results indicate selection bias. Our aim was to assess the external validity of the ongoing randomised SENOMAC trial by comparing characteristics of Swedish SENOMAC trial participants with non-included eligible patients registered in the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register (NKBC). METHODS: In the ongoing non-inferiority European SENOMAC trial, clinically node-negative cT1–T3 breast cancer patients with up to two sentinel lymph node macrometastases are randomised to undergo completion ALND or not. Both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are eligible interventions. Data from NKBC were extracted for the years 2016 and 2017, and patient and tumour characteristics compared with Swedish trial participants from the same years. RESULTS: Overall, 306 NKBC cases from non-participating and 847 NKBC cases from participating sites (excluding SENOMAC participants) were compared with 463 SENOMAC trial participants. Patients belonging to the middle age groups (p = 0.015), with smaller tumours (p = 0.013) treated by breast-conserving therapy (50.3 versus 47.1 versus 65.2%, p < 0.001) and less nodal tumour burden (only 1 macrometastasis in 78.8 versus 79.9 versus 87.3%, p = 0.001) were over-represented in the trial population. Time trends indicated, however, that differences may be mitigated over time. CONCLUSIONS: This interim external validity analysis specifically addresses selection mechanisms during an ongoing trial, potentially increasing generalisability by the time full accrual is reached. Similar validity checks should be an integral part of prospective clinical trials. Trial registration: NCT 02240472, retrospective registration date September 14, 2015 after trial initiation on January 31, 2015 Springer US 2020-01-27 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7031168/ /pubmed/31989379 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05537-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Clinical Trial
de Boniface, Jana
Ahlgren, Johan
Andersson, Yvette
Bergkvist, Leif
Frisell, Jan
Lundstedt, Dan
Olofsson Bagge, Roger
Rydén, Lisa
Sund, Malin
The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
title The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
title_full The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
title_fullStr The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
title_full_unstemmed The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
title_short The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
title_sort generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing senomac trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
topic Clinical Trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7031168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31989379
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05537-1
work_keys_str_mv AT debonifacejana thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT ahlgrenjohan thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT anderssonyvette thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT bergkvistleif thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT friselljan thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT lundstedtdan thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT olofssonbaggeroger thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT rydenlisa thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT sundmalin thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT thegeneralisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT debonifacejana generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT ahlgrenjohan generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT anderssonyvette generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT bergkvistleif generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT friselljan generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT lundstedtdan generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT olofssonbaggeroger generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT rydenlisa generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT sundmalin generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer
AT generalisabilityofrandomisedclinicaltrialsaninterimexternalvalidityanalysisoftheongoingsenomactrialinsentinellymphnodepositivebreastcancer