Cancer registries: A novel alternative to long-term clinical trial follow-up based on results of a comparative study

Qian D Shi, Y. Nancy You, Heidi Nelson, Mark S. Allen, David Winchester, Andrew Stewart, Tonia Young-Fadok, Paul A. Decker, Erin M. Green, Sara J. Holton, Karla V. Ballman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Data collection and review were identified as major contributors to the cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Purpose We proposed and assessed a novel alternative for long-term clinical trial follow-up based on the data captured through an accredited Cancer Registry (CR) that is part of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N934653 (COST) trial (98 patients) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 trial (55 patients) were included in the study. Demographic, treatment, and long-term outcome data were compared between the hospital-based CR and the RCTs' databases. Concordances were used to estimate the agreement between two databases. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to examine the consistency of time-to-event long-term outcomes of the CR and RCT databases. Results High concordances (>95%) were observed for most demographic and treatment variables between the CR data and RCT data. The vital status concordances were 100% and 94.5% between the CR and COST and Z0030 databases, respectively. Three discrepant death dates were observed, one in the COST trial and two in the Z0030 trial. The concordances of disease-free status between the CR and RCT databases were 99.0% and 87.3%, and 15 discrepant disease recurrence cases were identified: 4 for COST and 11 for Z0030. Limitations The analysis has been focused on patients from a single site, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in two large RCT evaluating surgical treatments. The findings herein need to be confirmed in a broader setting, such as multi-center, multi-registry including nonsurgical trials. Conclusions CR data were nearly identical to data from two randomized phase III trials in different disease types and conducted by two different cooperative groups. The NCDB Cancer Registries represent a feasible alternative for obtaining long-term follow-up data for large clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)686-695
Number of pages10
JournalClinical Trials
Volume7
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2010

Fingerprint

Registries
Clinical Trials
Databases
Randomized Controlled Trials
Neoplasms
Demography
Cancer Care Facilities
Therapeutics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Recurrence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Cancer registries : A novel alternative to long-term clinical trial follow-up based on results of a comparative study. / Shi, Qian D; You, Y. Nancy; Nelson, Heidi; Allen, Mark S.; Winchester, David; Stewart, Andrew; Young-Fadok, Tonia; Decker, Paul A.; Green, Erin M.; Holton, Sara J.; Ballman, Karla V.

In: Clinical Trials, Vol. 7, No. 6, 12.2010, p. 686-695.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shi, QD, You, YN, Nelson, H, Allen, MS, Winchester, D, Stewart, A, Young-Fadok, T, Decker, PA, Green, EM, Holton, SJ & Ballman, KV 2010, 'Cancer registries: A novel alternative to long-term clinical trial follow-up based on results of a comparative study', Clinical Trials, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 686-695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774510380953
Shi, Qian D ; You, Y. Nancy ; Nelson, Heidi ; Allen, Mark S. ; Winchester, David ; Stewart, Andrew ; Young-Fadok, Tonia ; Decker, Paul A. ; Green, Erin M. ; Holton, Sara J. ; Ballman, Karla V. / Cancer registries : A novel alternative to long-term clinical trial follow-up based on results of a comparative study. In: Clinical Trials. 2010 ; Vol. 7, No. 6. pp. 686-695.
@article{3dc4586c3ef741a598dc483e5ab44718,
title = "Cancer registries: A novel alternative to long-term clinical trial follow-up based on results of a comparative study",
abstract = "Background Data collection and review were identified as major contributors to the cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Purpose We proposed and assessed a novel alternative for long-term clinical trial follow-up based on the data captured through an accredited Cancer Registry (CR) that is part of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N934653 (COST) trial (98 patients) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 trial (55 patients) were included in the study. Demographic, treatment, and long-term outcome data were compared between the hospital-based CR and the RCTs' databases. Concordances were used to estimate the agreement between two databases. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to examine the consistency of time-to-event long-term outcomes of the CR and RCT databases. Results High concordances (>95{\%}) were observed for most demographic and treatment variables between the CR data and RCT data. The vital status concordances were 100{\%} and 94.5{\%} between the CR and COST and Z0030 databases, respectively. Three discrepant death dates were observed, one in the COST trial and two in the Z0030 trial. The concordances of disease-free status between the CR and RCT databases were 99.0{\%} and 87.3{\%}, and 15 discrepant disease recurrence cases were identified: 4 for COST and 11 for Z0030. Limitations The analysis has been focused on patients from a single site, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in two large RCT evaluating surgical treatments. The findings herein need to be confirmed in a broader setting, such as multi-center, multi-registry including nonsurgical trials. Conclusions CR data were nearly identical to data from two randomized phase III trials in different disease types and conducted by two different cooperative groups. The NCDB Cancer Registries represent a feasible alternative for obtaining long-term follow-up data for large clinical trials.",
author = "Shi, {Qian D} and You, {Y. Nancy} and Heidi Nelson and Allen, {Mark S.} and David Winchester and Andrew Stewart and Tonia Young-Fadok and Decker, {Paul A.} and Green, {Erin M.} and Holton, {Sara J.} and Ballman, {Karla V.}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1177/1740774510380953",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "686--695",
journal = "Clinical Trials",
issn = "1740-7745",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cancer registries

T2 - A novel alternative to long-term clinical trial follow-up based on results of a comparative study

AU - Shi, Qian D

AU - You, Y. Nancy

AU - Nelson, Heidi

AU - Allen, Mark S.

AU - Winchester, David

AU - Stewart, Andrew

AU - Young-Fadok, Tonia

AU - Decker, Paul A.

AU - Green, Erin M.

AU - Holton, Sara J.

AU - Ballman, Karla V.

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - Background Data collection and review were identified as major contributors to the cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Purpose We proposed and assessed a novel alternative for long-term clinical trial follow-up based on the data captured through an accredited Cancer Registry (CR) that is part of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N934653 (COST) trial (98 patients) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 trial (55 patients) were included in the study. Demographic, treatment, and long-term outcome data were compared between the hospital-based CR and the RCTs' databases. Concordances were used to estimate the agreement between two databases. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to examine the consistency of time-to-event long-term outcomes of the CR and RCT databases. Results High concordances (>95%) were observed for most demographic and treatment variables between the CR data and RCT data. The vital status concordances were 100% and 94.5% between the CR and COST and Z0030 databases, respectively. Three discrepant death dates were observed, one in the COST trial and two in the Z0030 trial. The concordances of disease-free status between the CR and RCT databases were 99.0% and 87.3%, and 15 discrepant disease recurrence cases were identified: 4 for COST and 11 for Z0030. Limitations The analysis has been focused on patients from a single site, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in two large RCT evaluating surgical treatments. The findings herein need to be confirmed in a broader setting, such as multi-center, multi-registry including nonsurgical trials. Conclusions CR data were nearly identical to data from two randomized phase III trials in different disease types and conducted by two different cooperative groups. The NCDB Cancer Registries represent a feasible alternative for obtaining long-term follow-up data for large clinical trials.

AB - Background Data collection and review were identified as major contributors to the cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Purpose We proposed and assessed a novel alternative for long-term clinical trial follow-up based on the data captured through an accredited Cancer Registry (CR) that is part of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N934653 (COST) trial (98 patients) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 trial (55 patients) were included in the study. Demographic, treatment, and long-term outcome data were compared between the hospital-based CR and the RCTs' databases. Concordances were used to estimate the agreement between two databases. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to examine the consistency of time-to-event long-term outcomes of the CR and RCT databases. Results High concordances (>95%) were observed for most demographic and treatment variables between the CR data and RCT data. The vital status concordances were 100% and 94.5% between the CR and COST and Z0030 databases, respectively. Three discrepant death dates were observed, one in the COST trial and two in the Z0030 trial. The concordances of disease-free status between the CR and RCT databases were 99.0% and 87.3%, and 15 discrepant disease recurrence cases were identified: 4 for COST and 11 for Z0030. Limitations The analysis has been focused on patients from a single site, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in two large RCT evaluating surgical treatments. The findings herein need to be confirmed in a broader setting, such as multi-center, multi-registry including nonsurgical trials. Conclusions CR data were nearly identical to data from two randomized phase III trials in different disease types and conducted by two different cooperative groups. The NCDB Cancer Registries represent a feasible alternative for obtaining long-term follow-up data for large clinical trials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650321171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650321171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1740774510380953

DO - 10.1177/1740774510380953

M3 - Article

C2 - 20729254

AN - SCOPUS:78650321171

VL - 7

SP - 686

EP - 695

JO - Clinical Trials

JF - Clinical Trials

SN - 1740-7745

IS - 6

ER -