Reporting of tobacco use and tobacco-related analyses in cancer cooperative group clinical trials: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Continued smoking after a diagnosis of cancer negatively impacts cancer outcomes, but the impact of tobacco on newer treatments options is not well established. Collecting and evaluating tobacco use in clinical trials may advance understanding of the consequences of tobacco use on treatment modalities, but little is known about the frequency of reporting and analysis of tobacco use in cancer cooperative clinical trial groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify cancer cooperative group clinical trials published from January 2017-October 2019. Eligible studies evaluated either systemic and/or radiation therapies, included ≥100 adult patients, and reported on at least one of: overall survival, disease/progression-free survival, response rates, toxicities/adverse events, or quality-of-life. RESULTS: A total of 91 studies representing 90 trials met inclusion criteria with trial start dates ranging from 1995 to 2015 with 14% involving lung and 5% head and neck cancer patients. A total of 19 studies reported baseline tobacco use; 2 reported collecting follow-up tobacco use. Seven studies reported analysis of the impact of baseline tobacco use on clinical outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in the reporting of baseline tobacco use: 7 reported never/ever status, 10 reported never/ex-smoker/current smoker status, and 4 reported measuring smoking intensity. None reported verifying smoking status or second-hand smoke exposure. Trials of lung and head and neck cancers were more likely to report baseline tobacco use than other disease sites (83% versus 6%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Few cancer cooperative group clinical trials report and analyze trial participants' tobacco use. Significant heterogeneity exists in reporting tobacco use. Routine standardized collection and reporting of tobacco use at baseline and follow-up in clinical trials should be implemented to enable investigators to evaluate the impact of tobacco use on new cancer therapies.

Interventions for preventing cardiomyopathy due to anthracyclines: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Background: The relative efficacy of interventions for primary prevention of anthracycline-associated cardiotoxicity is unknown. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials for primary prevention of anthracycline-associated cardiotoxicity in adult cancer patients. We used hierarchal outcome definitions in the following order of priority: (1) composite of heart failure or decline in left ventricular ejection fraction, (2) decline in ejection fraction, or (3) heart failure. Data were analyzed using a Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects. Results: A total of 16 trials reported cardiotoxicity as a dichotomous outcome among 1918 patients, evaluating dexrazoxane, angiotensin antagonists, beta-blockers, combination angiotensin antagonists and beta-blockers, statins, Co-enzyme Q-10, prenylamine, and N-acetylcysteine. Compared with control, dexrazoxane reduced cardiotoxicity with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.26 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.11-0.74) and had the highest probability (33%) of being most effective. No other agent was demonstrably better than placebo. Angiotensin antagonists had an 84% probability of being most effective in a sensitivity analysis excluding one outlying study (OR 0.06 [95% CrI 0.01- 0.24]). When the outcome was restricted to heart failure, dexrazoxane was associated with an OR of 0.12 (95% CrI 0.06-0.23) relative to control and had 58% probability of being most effective, while angiotensin antagonists had an OR of 0.18 (95% CrI 0.05-0.55). Available data suggested that dexrazoxane and angiotensin antagonists did not affect malignancy response rate or risk of death. Conclusion: Moderate quality data suggest that dexrazoxane, and low quality data suggest angiotensin antagonists, are likely to be effective for cardiotoxicity prevention.