Reporting practices of pharmacodynamic studies involving invasive research procedures in cancer trials

Background: Tumour biopsy for pharmacodynamic (PD) study is increasingly common in early-phase cancer trials. As they are non-diagnostic, the ethical justification for such procedures rests on their knowledge value. On the premise that knowledge value is related to reporting practices and outcome diversity, we assessed in a sample of recent invasive PD studies within cancer trials. Methods: We assessed reporting practices and outcomes for PD studies in a convenience sample of cancer trials published from 2000 to 2010 that employed invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement. Extracted data were used to measure outcome reporting in individual trials. Using a reporting scale we developed for exploratory purposes, we tested whether reporting varied with study characteristics, such as funding source or drug novelty. Results: Reporting varied widely within and across studies. Some practices were sporadically reported, including results of all planned tests (78% trials reporting), use of blinded histopathological assessment (43% trials reporting), biopsy dimensions (38% trials reporting), and description of patient flow through PD analysis (62%). Pharmacodynamic analysis as a primary end point and mandatory biopsy had statistically significant positive relationships with overall quality of reporting. A preponderance of positive results (61% of the studies described positive PD results) suggests possible publication bias. Conclusion: Our results highlight the need for PD-reporting guidelines, and suggest several avenues for improving the risk/benefit for studies involving invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement.