Interpretation of time-to-event outcomes in randomized trials: an online randomized experiment.

Background: Multiple features in the presentation of randomized controlled trial (RCT) results are known to influence comprehension and interpretation. We aimed to compare interpretation of cancer RCTs with time-to-event outcomes when the reported treatment effect measure is the hazard ratio (HR), difference in restricted mean survival times (RMSTD), or both (HR+RMSTD). We also assessed the prevalence of misinterpretation of the HR. Methods: We carried out a randomized experiment. We selected 15 cancer RCTs with statistically significant treatment effects for the primary outcome. We masked each abstract and created three versions reporting either the HR, RMSTD, or HR+RMSTD. We randomized corresponding authors of RCTs and medical residents and fellows to one of 15 abstracts and one of 3 versions. We asked how beneficial the experimental treatment was (0-10 Likert scale). All participants answered a multiple-choice question about interpretation of the HR. Participants were unaware of the study purpose. Results: We randomly allocated 160 participants to evaluate an abstract reporting the HR, 154 to the RMSTD, and 155 to both HR+RMSTD. The mean Likert score was statistically significantly lower in the RMSTD group when compared with the HR group (mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval, -1.3 to -0.4, P < 0.01) and when compared with the HR+RMSTD group (difference -0.6, -1.1 to -0.1, P = 0.05). In all, 47.2% (42.7%-51.8%) of participants misinterpreted the HR, with 40% equating it with a reduction in absolute risk. Conclusion: Misinterpretation of the HR is common. Participants judged experimental treatments to be less beneficial when presented with RMSTD when compared with HR. We recommend that authors present RMST-based measures alongside the HR in reports of RCT results.

Targeting transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair overcomes resistance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Treatment resistance becomes a challenge at some point in the course of most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). This applies to fludarabine-based regimens, and is also an increasing concern in the era of more targeted therapies. As cells with low-replicative activity rely on repair that triggers checkpoint-independent noncanonical pathways, we reasoned that targeting the nucleotide excision repair (NER) reaction addresses a vulnerability of CLL and might even synergize with fludarabine, which blocks the NER gap-filling step. We interrogated here especially the replication-independent transcription-coupled-NER ((TC)-NER) in prospective trial patients, primary CLL cultures, cell lines and mice. We screen selected (TC)-NER-targeting compounds as experimental (illudins) or clinically approved (trabectedin) drugs. They inflict transcription-stalling DNA lesions requiring TC-NER either for their removal (illudins) or for generation of lethal strand breaks (trabectedin). Genetically defined systems of NER deficiency confirmed their specificity. They selectively and efficiently induced cell death in CLL, irrespective of high-risk cytogenetics, IGHV status or clinical treatment history, including resistance. The substances induced ATM/p53-independent apoptosis and showed marked synergisms with fludarabine. Trabectedin additionally perturbed stromal-cell protection and showed encouraging antileukemic profiles even in aggressive and transforming murine CLL. This proof-of-principle study established (TC)-NER as a mechanism to be further exploited to resensitize CLL cells.