Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2017; 78(02): 116-119
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1586759
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

A Review of Skull Base Tumor Clinical Trials: Past Trends and Future Opportunities

Anand Devaiah
1   Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts, United States
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts, United States
3   Department of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts, United States
,
Charles Murchison
4   Department of Clinical Research, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

20 May 2016

29 June 2016

Publication Date:
24 August 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: A Review of Skull Base Tumor Clinical Trials: Past Trends and Future OpportunitiesJ Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2017; 78(02): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593739

Abstract

Objective Tumors of the anterior and lateral skull base (TALSB) are relatively rare but can be devastating to patients. By examining trials focused on TALSB, we can characterize the studies that predominate and better understand current directions of study. This gives us a better understanding of future studies to pursue.

Study Design This is a retrospective analysis.

Settings We set skull base tumor clinical trials in the United States which are listed in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Subjects and Methods We used the information available on ClinicalTrials.gov to identify trends in clinical trials studying sinonasal/anterior skull base (SNASB) tumors, vestibular schwannoma (VS), and pituitary tumors. The publication rate for these trials was examined using PubMed.gov.

Results Of the 71 trials analyzed, 83% investigated treatments for pituitary tumors, 16% for VSs, and 1% for SNASB tumors. Drug studies comprised 90% of all trials, while 9% included radiation therapy in their treatment and 10% included and surgical component. Overall, 64% had their results published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusion Among TALSB clinical trials we analyzed, they are weighted heavily toward drug trials. Radiation therapy and surgery, common treatment modalities, are underrepresented in clinical trials. There is a gap between the trials conducted and the rate of reporting, with an emphasis on positive results.

Keywords

skull base tumor - clinical trials - ClinicalTrials.gov - sinonasal cancer - vestibular schwannoma - pituitary tumor
 

  • References

  • 1 McDowell BD, Wallace RB, Carnahan RM, Chrischilles EA, Lynch CF, Schlechte JA. Demographic differences in incidence for pituitary adenoma. Pituitary 2011; 14 (1) 23-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Propp JM, McCarthy BJ, Davis FG, Preston-Martin S. Descriptive epidemiology of vestibular schwannomas. Neuro-oncol 2006; 8 (1) 1-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Turner JH, Reh DD. Incidence and survival in patients with sinonasal cancer: a historical analysis of population-based data. Head Neck 2012; 34 (6) 877-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Darrouzet V, Martel J, Enée V, Bébéar JP, Guérin J. Vestibular schwannoma surgery outcomes: our multidisciplinary experience in 400 cases over 17 years. Laryngoscope 2004; 114 (4) 681-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 ClinicalTrials.gov Background. Available at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/background . Accessed March 25, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ross JS, Tse T, Zarin DA, Xu H, Zhou L, Krumholz HM. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 2012; 344: d7292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (9) e1000144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Devaiah A, Murchison C. Analysis of 473 US Head and Neck Cancer Trials (1996-2014): Trends, Gaps, and Opportunities. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 154 (2) 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Devaiah A, Murchison C. Characteristics of NIH- and industry-sponsored head-and-neck cancer clinical trials. Laryngoscope 2016; DOI: 10.1002/lary.25942.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kuehn BM. Few studies reporting results at US government clinical trials site. JAMA 2012; 307 (7) 651-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dickersin K, Chalmers I. Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO. J R Soc Med 2011; 104 (12) 532-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993; (Doc No 50): 4967 , 53
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337 (8746): 867-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990; 263 (10) 1385-1389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hotz RL. What you don't know about a drug can hurt you. Wall Street Journal. December 12, 2008. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122903390105599607 . Accessed July 31, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997; 315 (7109): 640-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar