Questionable value of attribution when interpreting adverse event data: A joint evaluation by North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG)

6511 Background: In March 1998, the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 2.0 introduced the collection of attribution of adverse events (AE) to study drug. Collection of attribution adds time and cost to the clinical trial process, and reporting in the literature has varied. At ASCO 2006 results were presented from NCCTG trial 97–24–51 that showed ∼ 50% of events on the placebo arm were reported as attributed to study drug and 25% of the time the same event was not consistently attributed. We sought to validate these results in a second placebo controlled trial. Methods: Patients on the placebo arm of the phase III ACOSOG trial Z9001 (imatinib mesylate vs. placebo after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors) were evaluated since the reported AEs could not be due to study drug. Attribution was collected per CTCv3.0 as not related, unlikely, possibly, probably, or definitely related, and categorized as “unrelated” (not related or unlikely) and “related” (possible, probable, or definite). Patterns were evaluated using generalized estimating equations adjusting for multiple events per patient. Results: 202 patients and 2871 AEs were included. 52% of AEs were reported as “related”. Known imatinib AEs were more likely to be reported as “related”. The reported rate of AE relatedness varied by AE type. No patterns were observed by gender, age, PS, severity or visit of AE. When the same event was reported on the same patient on multiple visits, the attribution category changed at least once 33% of the time with 19% changing from “related” to “unrelated” or vice versa. Conclusion: 52% of events on the placebo arm of Z9001 were reported as attributed to study drug and 19% of the time the same event was not consistently attributed. These data provide further evidence that attribution is difficult to determine, unreliable, and of questionable value in interpreting randomized clinical trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]