Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025

Assessing Specificity of Anticancer Drugs In Vitro
Published on: March 23, 2016
Detection bias in open-label trials of anticancer drugs: a meta-epidemiological study
Satoshi Funada1,2, Yan Luo3, Yuki Kataoka4,5,6,7
1Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine and Faculty of Medicine / School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan sfunada@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Objectives:
In anticancer clinical trials, particularly open-label trials, central reviewers are recommended to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) to avoid detection bias of local investigators. However, it is not clear whether the bias has been adequately identified, or to what extent it consistently distorts the results. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the detection bias in oncological open-label trials by confirming whether local investigators overestimate the PFS and ORR compared with the findings of central reviewers.
Design:
Meta-epidemiological study.
Data Sources:
MEDLINE via PubMed from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021.
Eligibility Criteria For Selecting Studies:
Open-label, parallel-group superiority, randomised trials of anticancer drugs that adjudicated PFS or ORR by both central reviewers and local investigators.
Review Methods:
We assessed the values for the same outcome (PFS and ORR) adjudicated by both central reviewers and local investigators. A random-effects model was used to estimate the ratio of HR (RHR) for PFS and the ratio of OR (ROR) for ORR between central reviewers and local investigators. An RHR lower than 1 and an ROR higher than 1 indicated an overestimation of the effect estimated by local investigators.
Results:
We retrieved 1197 records of oncological open-label trials after full-text screening. We identified 171 records (PFS: 149 records, ORR: 136 records) in which both central reviewers and local investigators were used, and included 114 records (PFS: 92 records, ORR: 74 records) for meta-analyses. While the RHR for PFS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98), the ROR of ORR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.09). The results remained unchanged in the prespecified sensitivity analysis.
Conclusions:
This meta-epidemiological study found that overestimation of local investigators has a small impact on evaluating PFS and ORR in oncological open-label trials. However, a limitation of this study is that it did not include data from all trials; hence, the results may not fully evaluate detection bias. The necessity of central reviewers in oncological open-label trials needs to be assessed by further studies that overcome this limitation.
Trial Registration Number:
CTR-UMIN000044623.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Blinding
Clinical Trials: Overview
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Blind Procedures
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Treatment Resistant Cancers

