Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 7, 2026

Therapy Testing in a Spheroid-based 3D Cell Culture Model for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Published on: April 20, 2018
Safety reporting in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma clinical Trials: A comparative analysis of
Mahad Chaudhry1, Annes Elfar1, Kaylyn Rowsey1
1Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Introduction:
Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (HNSCC) is a debilitating malignancy that requires a multimodal approach in treatment, which is associated with a considerable burden of adverse events (AE). Since the 2007 FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA 801) mandates comprehensive AE reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, the consistency of these data with corresponding peer‑reviewed publications remains unclear. This study examines the consistency of AE reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed publications for HNSCC randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted post-FDAAA implementation.
Materials And Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed AE reporting on Phase II-IV HNSCC RCTs registered on clinicaltrials.gov between September 27, 2009, and January 15, 2025. Data was extracted on participant counts and total events for serious adverse events (SAEs), other adverse events (OAEs), all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment discontinuation. Discrepancies were defined as any mismatch in counts or reporting. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests assessed differences in reporting frequencies and publication delays between trial and publication data.
Results:
Overall, 60 trials met inclusion criteria. All 60/60 (100 %) trials reported participants affected by SAEs versus 43/60 (71.7 %) publications (p < 0.05), of which 33/43 (76.7 %) showed discrepant counts. Likewise, 60/60 (100 %) trials versus 22/60 (36.7 %) publications reported participants affected by OAEs (p < 0.05), with 18/22 (81.8 %) mismatches. Among 24/24 (100 %) trials completed post‑2017, ACM was reported on ClinicalTrials.gov versus 15/24 (62.5 %) publications, and 22/24 (91.7 %) of those pairs differed. Participant discontinuations due to AEs appeared in 17/60 (28.3 %) registries versus 39/60 (65.0 %) publications (p < 0.05); of the 15/17 (88.2 %) with both sources reporting, 9/15 (60.0 %) had discordant counts.
Conclusion:
Substantial inconsistencies in AE, mortality, and discontinuation reporting persist between ClinicalTrials.gov and peer‑reviewed publications of HNSCC RCTs. To uphold transparency and patient safety, enhanced technical safeguards on registry platforms and stricter journal policies, such as mandatory discrepancy checklists, are urgently needed.
More Related Videos
07:29Intramucosal Inoculation of Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells in Mice for Tumor Immune Profiling and Treatment Response Assessment
Published on: April 22, 2019
06:08Establishment and Characterization of Patient-Derived Xenograft Models of Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Published on: June 2, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Cancer Survival Analysis
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...