The Value of Source Data Verification in a Cancer Clinical Trial

Background Source data verification (SDV) is a resource intensive method of quality assurance frequently used in clinical trials. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that SDV would impact on comparative treatment effect results from a clinical trial. Methods Data discrepancies and comparative treatment effects obtained following 100% SDV were compared to those based on data without SDV. Overall survival (OS) and Progression-free survival (PFS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests and Cox models. Tumour response classifications and comparative treatment Odds Ratios (ORs) for the outcome objective response rate, and number of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were compared. OS estimates based on SDV data were compared against estimates obtained from centrally monitored data. Findings Data discrepancies were identified between different monitoring procedures for the majority of variables examined, with some variation in discrepancy rates. There were no systematic patterns to discrepancies and their impact was negligible on OS, the primary outcome of the trial (HR (95% CI): 1.18(0.99 to 1.41), p = 0.064 with 100% SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.42), p = 0.068 without SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.40), p = 0.073 with central monitoring). Results were similar for PFS. More extreme discrepancies were found for the subjective outcome overall objective response (OR (95% CI): 1.67(1.04 to 2.68), p = 0.03 with 100% SDV; 2.45(1.49 to 4.04), p = 0.0003 without any SDV) which was mostly due to differing CT scans. Interpretation Quality assurance methods used in clinical trials should be informed by empirical evidence. In this empirical comparison, SDV was expensive and identified random errors that made little impact on results and clinical conclusions of the trial. Central monitoring using an external data source was a more efficient approach for the primary outcome of OS. For the subjective outcome objective response, an independent blinded review committee and tracking system to monitor missing scan data could be more efficient than SDV.

[1]  Anders Grahnén,et al.  Quality assurance within the scope of Good Clinical Practice (GCP)—what is the cost of GCP-related activities? A survey within the Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry (LIF)'s members , 2009 .

[2]  F. Hamdy,et al.  A Peer Review Intervention for Monitoring and Evaluating sites (PRIME) that improved randomized controlled trial conduct and performance. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  P. Lachenbruch,et al.  The role of biostatistics in the prevention, detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  M. Buyse,et al.  Impact of on-site initiation visits on patient recruitment and data quality in a randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer , 2006, Clinical trials.

[5]  Sheena McCormack,et al.  The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial , 2012, Clinical trials.

[6]  Ich Harmonised,et al.  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE , 2006 .

[7]  M. van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  James D Neaton,et al.  Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: a survey of current practices , 2011, Clinical trials.

[9]  Eric L Eisenstein,et al.  Reducing the costs of phase III cardiovascular clinical trials. , 2005, American heart journal.

[10]  M Van Glabbeke,et al.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods , 2008, Clinical trials.

[12]  J B Vermorken,et al.  Quality control in multicentric clinical trials. An experience of the EORTC Gynecological Cancer Cooperative Group. , 2000, European journal of cancer.

[13]  M. Landray,et al.  Risk-adapted approaches to the management of clinical trials: guidance from the Department of Health (DH)/Medical Research Council(MRC)/Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Clinical Trials Working Group , 2011, Trials.

[14]  S. Meredith,et al.  MRC/DH/MHRA Joint Project Risk-adapted approaches to the management of clinical trials of investigational medicinal products , 2011 .