Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2026

A Combined 3D Tissue Engineered In Vitro/In Silico Lung Tumor Model for Predicting Drug Effectiveness in Specific Mutational Backgrounds
Published on: April 6, 2016
Quality, evolution, and clinical implications of randomized, controlled trials on the treatment of lung cancer. A
A Nicolucci1, R Grilli, A A Alexanian
1Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, S Maria Imbaro (Chieti), Italy.
Abstract:
A review of 150 published randomized trials on the treatment of lung cancer showed serious methodological drawbacks. Handling of withdrawals (only 7 trials had no dropouts), a priori estimates of sample size (only 9 trials specified the required number of patients), blinding of randomization (only 22 trials had a satisfactory procedure), and information on eligible nonrandomized patients (only 13 studies reported it precisely) were areas of major concern. Although trial quality improved over time both in design/execution (study size estimation and analysis by prognostic factors became more frequent) and reporting (information on patients' characteristics and side effects were more thoroughly reported), their evolution was inconsistent. For non-small-cell lung cancer-despite the persistent lack of proof of efficacy of any active treatment-an untreated control arm was prematurely abandoned and a wide variety of tested regimens prevailed even in better-quality studies. Slightly more promising is the picture for small-cell lung cancer, where research indicates somewhat more reliable-though limited-progress. While clinical research in lung cancer has contributed little to defining the best standard care, we conclude that its heterogeneity makes it unlikely that quantitative meta-analysis of existing trials will be constructive.
Insights
Methodological flaws in lung cancer trials, including handling withdrawals and sample size, hinder progress. Despite some improvements, inconsistent quality and lack of clear efficacy data limit the value of meta-analysis for lung cancer treatment research.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Clinical Trials Methodology
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are crucial for advancing lung cancer treatment.
- Previous reviews suggest methodological limitations in published lung cancer trials.
- Assessing the quality of evidence is essential for guiding clinical practice and future research.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically evaluate the methodological quality of published randomized trials in lung cancer treatment.
- To identify specific areas of concern in trial design, execution, and reporting.
- To assess the evolution of trial quality over time and its impact on the reliability of findings.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review and critical appraisal of 150 published randomized trials on lung cancer treatment.
- Assessment of methodological aspects including handling of withdrawals, sample size estimation, randomization procedures, and reporting of eligible nonrandomized patients.
- Analysis of trends in trial quality over time and differences between non-small-cell lung cancer and small-cell lung cancer.
Main Results:
- Significant methodological drawbacks were identified in the majority of reviewed trials.
- Key areas of concern included inadequate handling of withdrawals (only 7/150 trials), unspecified sample size calculations (only 9/150), unsatisfactory randomization blinding (only 22/150), and imprecise reporting of eligible nonrandomized patients (only 13/150).
- While some improvements in design and reporting were observed over time, the evolution was inconsistent, particularly for non-small-cell lung cancer where untreated control arms were abandoned despite lack of proven efficacy.
Conclusions:
- The methodological quality of lung cancer randomized trials remains a significant concern, limiting the reliability of their findings.
- Inconsistent trial quality and the abandonment of untreated control arms in non-small-cell lung cancer highlight challenges in establishing effective treatments.
- The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of existing trials make quantitative meta-analysis unlikely to be constructive for defining optimal lung cancer care.
More Related Videos
07:59Ultra-Fast Amplicon-Based Next-Generation Sequencing in Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Published on: September 8, 2023
04:11A Video Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial - Electrochemotherapy of Cutaneous Metastases with Reduced Dose Bleomycin (BLESS Trial)
Published on: June 9, 2026
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against specific...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Cancer Survival Analysis