IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0051623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Source Data Verification in a Cancer Clinical Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Catrin Tudur Smith
  • Deborah D Stocken
  • Janet Dunn
  • Trevor Cox
  • Paula Ghaneh
  • David Cunningham
  • John P Neoptolemos

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Catrin Tudur Smith & Deborah D Stocken & Janet Dunn & Trevor Cox & Paula Ghaneh & David Cunningham & John P Neoptolemos, 2012. "The Value of Source Data Verification in a Cancer Clinical Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0051623
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051623
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051623&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0051623?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0051623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.