Accuracy of Cytologic vs Histologic Specimens for Assessment of Programmed Cell Death Ligand-1 Expression in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor cells, evaluated by immunohistochemistry, guides the use of immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed in cytologic vs paired histologic specimens in patients with NSCLC? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through June 1, 2021. The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed on cytologic specimens compared with the reference standard of histologic specimens, analyzed at the PD-L1 expression cutoffs (tumor proportion score) ≥ 1% and ≥ 50%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity, and associated 95% CIs, were estimated using bivariate generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were included, encompassing a total of 1,064 pairs of histology specimens and cytology cell blocks, and 267 pairs of histology specimens and direct smears. Among these, 946 paired specimens were acquired without interval treatment between the collection of histology and cytology samples. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens compared with paired histology specimens at the PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.86) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. When only paired specimens acquired without interval treatment were considered, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens at PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.89) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Cytologic specimens provide an accurate assessment of PD-L1 expression in most patients with NSCLC, at both ≥ 1% and ≥ 50% cutoffs, when compared with histologic specimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020153279; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest by Canadian clinical practice guideline producers: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The producers of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may not disclose industry funding in their CPGs. We reviewed Canadian national CPGs to examine the existence and disclosure of industry-related organizational funding in the CPGs, financial conflicts of interest of committee members and organizational procedures for managing financial conflicts of interest. METHODS: For this descriptive study, we searched the asset map of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance and the CPG Infobase for CPGs published between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 30, 2018. Eligible guidelines had to have a national focus and either a first-line drug recommendation or a screening recommendation leading to drug treatment. One investigator reviewed all CPG titles to exclude those that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently reviewed all remaining guidelines and extracted data. We analyzed the data descriptively. RESULTS: We included 21 CPGs: 3 from government-sponsored organizations, 9 from disease or condition interest groups and 9 from medical professional societies. None of the 3 government-sponsored organizations reported industry funding, and none of their committee members disclosed financial conflicts of interest. Among the 18 disease or condition interest groups and medical professional societies, 14 (93%) of the 15 that disclosed funding sources on websites (3 did not disclose) reported organizational funding from industry, but none disclosed this information in the CPGs; 12 (86%) of the 14 with conflict-of-interest disclosure statements in the CPG (4 did not include disclosures) had at least 1 committee member with a financial conflict (mean proportion of committee members with a conflict 56%); and for all 8 CPGs with identifiable chairs or cochairs (chairs or cochairs not reported for 10) at least 1 of these people had a financial conflict of interest. None of the guidelines described a plan to manage organizational financial conflicts of interest. INTERPRETATION: Canadian CPGs are vulnerable to industry influence through funding of producers of guidelines and through the financial conflicts of interest of committee members. The CPG producers that receive industry funding should disclose organizational financial conflicts in the CPGs, should engage independent oversight committees and should restrict voting on recommendations to guideline panelists who have no financial conflicts.

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. DESIGN: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES: We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. RESULTS: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS: We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Use of the nominal group technique to identify stakeholder priorities and inform survey development: an example with informal caregivers of people with scleroderma.

OBJECTIVES: The nominal group technique (NGT) allows stakeholders to directly generate items for needs assessment surveys. The objective was to demonstrate the use of NGT discussions to develop survey items on (1) challenges experienced by informal caregivers of people living with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and (2) preferences for support services. DESIGN: Three NGT groups were conducted. In each group, participants generated lists of challenges and preferred formats for support services. Participants shared items, and a master list was compiled, then reviewed by participants to remove or merge overlapping items. Once a final list of items was generated, participants independently rated challenges on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important) and support services on a scale from 1 (not at all likely to use) to 10 (very likely to use). Lists generated in the NGT discussions were subsequently reviewed and integrated into a single list by research team members. SETTING: SSc patient conferences held in the USA and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Informal caregivers who previously or currently were providing care for a family member or friend with SSc. RESULTS: A total of six men and seven women participated in the NGT discussions. Mean age was 59.8 years (SD=12.6). Participants provided care for a partner (n=8), parent (n=1), child (n=2) or friend (n=2). A list of 61 unique challenges was generated with challenges related to gaps in information, resources and support needs identified most frequently. A list of 18 unique support services was generated; most involved online or in-person delivery of emotional support and educational material about SSc. CONCLUSIONS: The NGT was an efficient method for obtaining survey items directly from SSc caregivers on important challenges and preferences for support services.