Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review

doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0305-5

. 2018 Nov;119(10):1288-1296.

doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0305-5. Epub 2018 Oct 24.

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review

Emmanuelle Kempf^{1

2}, Jennifer A de Beyer¹, Jonathan Cook¹, Jane Holmes¹, Seid Mohammed¹, Tri-Long Nguyên^{1

3}, Iveta Simera⁴, Marialena Trivella¹, Douglas G Altman¹, Sally Hopewell¹, Karel G M Moons^{5

6}, Raphael Porcher⁷, Johannes B Reitsma^{5

6}, Willi Sauerbrei⁸, Gary S Collins^{9

10}

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
² Department of Medical Oncology, Henri Mondor and Albert Chenevier Teaching Hospital, APHP, Créteil, France.
³ Laboratory UPRES EA2415, Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Clinical Research and Health Economics, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
⁴ Nuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
⁵ Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
⁶ Cochrane Netherlands, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
⁷ Department of Epidemiology, Hôtel Dieu Teaching Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
⁸ Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
⁹ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. gary.collins@csm.ox.ac.uk.
¹⁰ NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. gary.collins@csm.ox.ac.uk.

PMID: 30353050
PMCID: PMC6251031
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0305-5

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review

Emmanuelle Kempf et al. Br J Cancer. 2018 Nov.

. 2018 Nov;119(10):1288-1296.

doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0305-5. Epub 2018 Oct 24.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
² Department of Medical Oncology, Henri Mondor and Albert Chenevier Teaching Hospital, APHP, Créteil, France.
³ Laboratory UPRES EA2415, Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Clinical Research and Health Economics, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
⁴ Nuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
⁵ Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
⁶ Cochrane Netherlands, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
⁷ Department of Epidemiology, Hôtel Dieu Teaching Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
⁸ Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
⁹ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. gary.collins@csm.ox.ac.uk.
¹⁰ NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK. gary.collins@csm.ox.ac.uk.

PMID: 30353050
PMCID: PMC6251031
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0305-5

Abstract

Background: Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology.

Methods: This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty).

Results: Our search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1-Q3, 1-7). The prognostic factors' effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions.

Conclusions: Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

**Fig. 1**
Flow chart of the study selection

See this image and copyright information in PMC

Cited by

REMARK guidelines for tumour biomarker study reporting: a remarkable history.
Hayes DF, Sauerbrei W, McShane LM. Hayes DF, et al. Br J Cancer. 2023 Feb;128(3):443-445. doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-02046-4. Epub 2022 Dec 7. Br J Cancer. 2023. PMID: 36476656 Free PMC article. Review.
GADD45B Transcript Is a Prognostic Marker in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Patients Treated With Total Thyroidectomy and Radioiodine Therapy.
Barros-Filho MC, de Mello JBH, Marchi FA, Pinto CAL, da Silva IC, Damasceno PKF, Soares MBP, Kowalski LP, Rogatto SR. Barros-Filho MC, et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 Apr 30;11:269. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00269. eCollection 2020. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020. PMID: 32425887 Free PMC article.
Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals.
Pathmendra P, Park Y, Enguita FJ, Byrne JA. Pathmendra P, et al. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2024 Jul;397(7):5049-5066. doi: 10.1007/s00210-023-02846-2. Epub 2024 Jan 9. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2024. PMID: 38194106 Free PMC article.
Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.
Velde HM, van Heteren JAA, Smit AL, Stegeman I. Velde HM, et al. Front Neurol. 2021 Jul 16;12:693937. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.693937. eCollection 2021. Front Neurol. 2021. PMID: 34335451 Free PMC article.
An overview of statistical methods for biomarkers relevant to early clinical development of cancer immunotherapies.
Dejardin D, Kraxner A, Schindler E, Städler N, Wolbers M. Dejardin D, et al. Front Immunol. 2024 Aug 21;15:1351584. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1351584. eCollection 2024. Front Immunol. 2024. PMID: 39234243 Free PMC article. Review.

See all "Cited by" articles

References

1. Temel JS, Shaw AT, Greer JA. Challenge of prognostic uncertainty in the modern era of cancer therapeutics. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:3605–3609. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.8573. - DOI - PubMed
1. Hagerty RG, et al. Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients’ views on the disclosure of prognosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:1278–1288. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.11.138. - DOI - PubMed
1. Lagarde SM, et al. Patient preferences for the disclosure of prognosis after esophagectomy for cancer with curative intent. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008;15:3289–3298. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0068-y. - DOI - PubMed
1. Miyata H, Takahashi M, Saito T, Tachimori H, Kai I. Disclosure preferences regarding cancer diagnosis and prognosis: to tell or not to tell? J. Med. Ethics. 2005;31:447–451. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.007302. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
1. Nie X, et al. Poor-prognosis disclosure preference in cancer patient-caregiver dyads and its association with their quality of life and perceived stress: a cross-sectional survey in mainland China. Psychooncology. 2016;25:1099–1105. doi: 10.1002/pon.4055. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Substances

Actions

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

[1] Temel JS, Shaw AT, Greer JA. Challenge of prognostic uncertainty in the modern era of cancer therapeutics. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:3605–3609. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.8573. - DOI - PubMed

[2] Temel JS, Shaw AT, Greer JA. Challenge of prognostic uncertainty in the modern era of cancer therapeutics. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:3605–3609. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.8573. - DOI - PubMed

[3] Hagerty RG, et al. Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients’ views on the disclosure of prognosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:1278–1288. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.11.138. - DOI - PubMed

[4] Hagerty RG, et al. Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients’ views on the disclosure of prognosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:1278–1288. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.11.138. - DOI - PubMed

[5] Lagarde SM, et al. Patient preferences for the disclosure of prognosis after esophagectomy for cancer with curative intent. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008;15:3289–3298. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0068-y. - DOI - PubMed

[6] Lagarde SM, et al. Patient preferences for the disclosure of prognosis after esophagectomy for cancer with curative intent. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008;15:3289–3298. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0068-y. - DOI - PubMed

[7] Miyata H, Takahashi M, Saito T, Tachimori H, Kai I. Disclosure preferences regarding cancer diagnosis and prognosis: to tell or not to tell? J. Med. Ethics. 2005;31:447–451. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.007302. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

[8] Miyata H, Takahashi M, Saito T, Tachimori H, Kai I. Disclosure preferences regarding cancer diagnosis and prognosis: to tell or not to tell? J. Med. Ethics. 2005;31:447–451. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.007302. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

[9] Nie X, et al. Poor-prognosis disclosure preference in cancer patient-caregiver dyads and its association with their quality of life and perceived stress: a cross-sectional survey in mainland China. Psychooncology. 2016;25:1099–1105. doi: 10.1002/pon.4055. - DOI - PubMed

[10] Nie X, et al. Poor-prognosis disclosure preference in cancer patient-caregiver dyads and its association with their quality of life and perceived stress: a cross-sectional survey in mainland China. Psychooncology. 2016;25:1099–1105. doi: 10.1002/pon.4055. - DOI - PubMed

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review

Affiliations

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

Similar articles

Cited by

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources