Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Impact of retrospective data verification on the results of the academic-led ICON6 trial

  • Andrew Embleton1,
  • Elizabeth Clark1,
  • Stephen Townsend1,
  • Laura Farrelly2,
  • Cheryl Jones1 and
  • Richard Kaplan1
Trials201516(Suppl 2):P184

https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P184

Published: 16 November 2015

Keywords

Ovarian CancerAscertainment BiasRecurrent Ovarian CancerMonitoring ModelMinimal Gain

ICON6 (ISRCTN68510403) is a phase III academic-led international double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial of the addition of cediranib to chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. The trial established a beneficial gain in progression-free survival (PFS), conducted using the long established risk-based monitoring model as advocated by FDA/EMA as an alternative to the traditional monitoring-intensive industry approach. AstraZeneca are currently considering regulatory submissions using ICON6 as the single pivotal trial.

Given the lower level of on-site monitoring performed AstraZeneca mandated the CTU implement retrospective Source Data Verification (SDV) of medical records against Case Report Forms (CRFs), and complete Quality Control (QC) checks of single data entry. Additionally, Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) of imaging studies to assess investigator ascertainment bias was performed. We summarise changes resulting from additional monitoring and the impact on reported results.

Amongst 253 events in 282 patients in the primary comparison two additional progressions were reported, one in each arm. The result of the log-rank test changed marginally, remaining p<0.001. No change in a hazard ratio of 0.57, with minor confidence interval adjustment from 0.45-0.74 to 0.44-0.73. Reference median time-to-event remained at 8.7 months, with the comparator revised from 11.1 to 11.0. Within those progressions assessed radiographically, BICR identified differences as expected given the subjective nature of scan assessment. However these differences were slight.

SDV, QC and BICR were resource intensive and an additional burden to both site and CTU staff and, as anticipated, resulted in immaterial data changes with a minimal gain in accuracy of key study endpoints.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK
(2)
CRUK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK

Copyright

© Embleton et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement