Collaborative clinical trials: quality or quantity?
Identifieur interne : 002401 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 002400; suivant : 002402Collaborative clinical trials: quality or quantity?
Auteurs : Ian F. Tannock [Canada]Source :
- International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics [ 0360-3016 ] ; 2001.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Adjuvant hysterectomy, Anticancer drugs, Bayesian terms, Better outcome, Biologic, Biologic mechanisms, Breast cancer, Cervical cancer, Chemotherapy, Clin cancer, Clinical scientists, Clinical trial, Clinical trials, Collaborative group, Colorectal cancer, Common tumors, Concurrent chemotherapy, Confocal microscopy, Data torturing, Doxorubicin, Early breast cancer, Early breast cancer trialists, Elsevier science, Endpoint, England journal, High chance, Individual patients, Individual trials, Laboratory science, Large trials, Larger gains, Mechanistic information, Medical oncology, Multiple endpoints, Multiple tests, Natl cancer inst, Normal tissues, Oncology, Other factors, Outcome measures, Pool resources, Positive effect, Positive result, Princess margaret hospital, Radiation therapy, Randomised trials, Randomized, Randomized trial, Randomized trials, Relative merits, Single trial, Small differences, Small randomized trials, Solid tissue, Solid tumors, Standard treatment, Statistical power, Such trials, Therapeutic index, Treatment failure, Trials testing, Tumor biopsies, Tumor cells.
Abstract
Abstract: Purpose: To review the merits of using the limited available resources — patients, money, clinical scientists, and ideas — in various types of clinical trial. Conclusions: Two types of trial represent a poor use of resources: (a) nonrandomized trials that provide no insight into biologic mechanisms and are not precursors to testing new strategies in comparison with standard treatment in randomized trials; and (b) small randomized trials that are difficult to interpret because of a high rate of false-positive and false-negative trials. Very large trials that can detect small differences in survival for patients with common tumors are appropriate, but a similar design to detect transient improvements due to palliative therapy represent a poor use of resources. Larger gains in therapeutic index will require the recognition of tumor heterogeneity and the conduct of small trials that are based on biologic hypotheses, and which provide mechanistic information in patients; two examples are provided. Ultimately, strategies that may be individualized among a group of patients with histologically similar tumors will need to be evaluated against the current standard (and homogeneous) treatment.
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)01500-5
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 001294
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 001294
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 001227
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 002426
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 002401
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Collaborative clinical trials: quality or quantity?</title><author><name sortKey="Tannock, Ian F" sort="Tannock, Ian F" uniqKey="Tannock I" first="Ian F" last="Tannock">Ian F. Tannock</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A9EDF66D16AE9C7255E48A6038058063F1F97E23</idno><date when="2001" year="2001">2001</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/S0360-3016(00)01500-5</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/6H6-MP66ZR4M-R/fulltext.pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001294</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001294</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">001294</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">001227</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">001227</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">0360-3016:2001:Tannock I:collaborative:clinical:trials</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">002426</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">002401</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">002401</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Collaborative clinical trials: quality or quantity?</title><author><name sortKey="Tannock, Ian F" sort="Tannock, Ian F" uniqKey="Tannock I" first="Ian F" last="Tannock">Ian F. Tannock</name><affiliation wicri:level="4"><country xml:lang="fr">Canada</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto</wicri:regionArea><orgName type="university">Université de Toronto</orgName><placeName><settlement type="city">Toronto</settlement><region type="state">Ontario</region></placeName></affiliation><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country wicri:rule="url">Canada</country></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">ROB</title><idno type="ISSN">0360-3016</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="2001">2001</date><biblScope unit="volume">49</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="339">339</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="343">343</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0360-3016</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0360-3016</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Adjuvant hysterectomy</term><term>Anticancer drugs</term><term>Bayesian terms</term><term>Better outcome</term><term>Biologic</term><term>Biologic mechanisms</term><term>Breast cancer</term><term>Cervical cancer</term><term>Chemotherapy</term><term>Clin cancer</term><term>Clinical scientists</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Collaborative group</term><term>Colorectal cancer</term><term>Common tumors</term><term>Concurrent chemotherapy</term><term>Confocal microscopy</term><term>Data torturing</term><term>Doxorubicin</term><term>Early breast cancer</term><term>Early breast cancer trialists</term><term>Elsevier science</term><term>Endpoint</term><term>England journal</term><term>High chance</term><term>Individual patients</term><term>Individual trials</term><term>Laboratory science</term><term>Large trials</term><term>Larger gains</term><term>Mechanistic information</term><term>Medical oncology</term><term>Multiple endpoints</term><term>Multiple tests</term><term>Natl cancer inst</term><term>Normal tissues</term><term>Oncology</term><term>Other factors</term><term>Outcome measures</term><term>Pool resources</term><term>Positive effect</term><term>Positive result</term><term>Princess margaret hospital</term><term>Radiation therapy</term><term>Randomised trials</term><term>Randomized</term><term>Randomized trial</term><term>Randomized trials</term><term>Relative merits</term><term>Single trial</term><term>Small differences</term><term>Small randomized trials</term><term>Solid tissue</term><term>Solid tumors</term><term>Standard treatment</term><term>Statistical power</term><term>Such trials</term><term>Therapeutic index</term><term>Treatment failure</term><term>Trials testing</term><term>Tumor biopsies</term><term>Tumor cells</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Abstract: Purpose: To review the merits of using the limited available resources — patients, money, clinical scientists, and ideas — in various types of clinical trial. Conclusions: Two types of trial represent a poor use of resources: (a) nonrandomized trials that provide no insight into biologic mechanisms and are not precursors to testing new strategies in comparison with standard treatment in randomized trials; and (b) small randomized trials that are difficult to interpret because of a high rate of false-positive and false-negative trials. Very large trials that can detect small differences in survival for patients with common tumors are appropriate, but a similar design to detect transient improvements due to palliative therapy represent a poor use of resources. Larger gains in therapeutic index will require the recognition of tumor heterogeneity and the conduct of small trials that are based on biologic hypotheses, and which provide mechanistic information in patients; two examples are provided. Ultimately, strategies that may be individualized among a group of patients with histologically similar tumors will need to be evaluated against the current standard (and homogeneous) treatment.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list><country><li>Canada</li></country><region><li>Ontario</li></region><settlement><li>Toronto</li></settlement><orgName><li>Université de Toronto</li></orgName></list><tree><country name="Canada"><region name="Ontario"><name sortKey="Tannock, Ian F" sort="Tannock, Ian F" uniqKey="Tannock I" first="Ian F" last="Tannock">Ian F. Tannock</name></region><name sortKey="Tannock, Ian F" sort="Tannock, Ian F" uniqKey="Tannock I" first="Ian F" last="Tannock">Ian F. Tannock</name></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/ChloroquineV1/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002401 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 002401 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Sante
|area= ChloroquineV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:A9EDF66D16AE9C7255E48A6038058063F1F97E23
|texte= Collaborative clinical trials: quality or quantity?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |