Camacho LH et al. (2005) Presentation and subsequent publication rates of phase I oncology clinical trials. Cancer 104: 1497–1504

A team of researchers in the US have expressed concern over a form of reporting bias wherein the results of clinical trials submitted to scientific meetings are never reported in peer-reviewed journals. To investigate this phenomenon, the team conducted a study to determine the publication rate of phase I trials submitted to the 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting.

MEDLINE searches and email questionnaires were used to determine the publication status of the studies and the reasons for nonpublication. Of the 275 phase I trial abstracts submitted to ASCO, 148 (54%) were chosen for publication and at 7.5 years, 185 (67%) had been reported in peer-reviewed journals. The median time to publication was 3.4 years. Trials involving novel agents were significantly more likely to be selected for presentation, but no more likely to be published. Abstracts chosen for presentation were published more quickly than those not selected. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship appeared to have no influence on presentation or publication rates. Of the reasons given for nonpublication, lack of time, ongoing preparation of results, and relocation of authors were the most common.

The authors stress the importance of reporting the results of phase I trials to the oncology community and urge investigators to publish their results in a timely manner. Under-reporting of clinical trials delays scientific progress and could have a negative impact on patient care.