scholarly journals Is Bayesian Analysis Ready for Use in Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials?

Stroke ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 1622-1623 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Howard ◽  
Christopher S. Coffey ◽  
Gary R. Cutter
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Bayesian Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii

What are the reciprocal influences of randomized clinical trials and the patient–psychiatrist relationship?

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
J. Catteau ◽  
C. Cyran ◽  
R. Bordet ◽  
C.E. Thomas ◽  
B.A. Dupuis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Antidepressant Drugs ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Reciprocal Influences

SummaryThe goal of this prospective investigation was to study the course and the quality of patient-psychiatrist relationships during phase II / phase III clinical trials of antidepressant medication prescribed for depressive disorders. All patients who participated in the clinical trials (and subsequently in this survey) signed written informed consent statements and were subject to random double blind treatment assignment. Retrospective analysis of 118 investigations was carried out, and the patients involved were questioned concerning their experiences and impressions during and after the study. Data show that the outcome of clinical trials of antidepressant drugs are not a function of pre-existing good patient-psychiatrist relationships. On the other hand, no effects on the patient-psychiatrist relationship were found as a result of the experimental procedure, and it can be concluded that no detrimental effects on future patient-psychiatrist relationships were incurred.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Value of Attribution in the Interpretation of Adverse Event Data: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Investigation

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (18) ◽  
pp. 3002-3007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shauna L. Hillman ◽  
Sumithra J. Mandrekar ◽  
Brian Bot ◽  
Ronald P. DeMatteo ◽  
Edith A. Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
North Central ◽  
American College Of Surgeons ◽  
Group Trial

Purpose In March 1998, Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 2.0 introduced the collection of attribution of adverse events (AEs) to study drug. We investigate whether attribution adds value to the interpretation of AE data. Patients and Methods Patients in the placebo arm of two phase III trials—North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial 97-24-51 (carboxyamino-triazole v placebo in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer) and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z9001 (imatinib mesylate v placebo after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors)—were studied. Attribution was categorized as unrelated (not related or unlikely) and related (possible, probable, or definite). Results In total, 398 patients (84 from Trial 97-24-51 and 314 from Trial Z9001) and 7,736 AEs were included; 47% and 50% of the placebo-arm AEs, respectively, were reported as related. When the same AE was reported in the same patient on multiple visits, the attribution category changed at least once 36% and 31% of the time. AE type and sex (Trial Z9001) and AE type and performance status (Trial 97-24-51) were associated with a higher likelihood of AEs being deemed related. Conclusion Nearly 50% of AEs were reported as attributed to study drug on the placebo arm of two randomized clinical trials. These data provide strong evidence that AE attribution is difficult to determine, unreliable, and of questionable value in interpreting AE data in randomized clinical trials.

scholarly journals Blinded Independent Central Review of Progression-Free Survival in Phase III Clinical Trials: Important Design Element or Unnecessary Expense?

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (22) ◽  
pp. 3791-3796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori E. Dodd ◽  
Edward L. Korn ◽  
Boris Freidlin ◽  
C. Carl Jaffe ◽  
Lawrence V. Rubinstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Informative Censoring ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
General Strategy ◽  
Design Element ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Using Data

Progression-free survival is an important end point in advanced disease settings. Blinded independent central review (BICR) of progression in randomized clinical trials has been advocated to control bias that might result from errors in progression assessments. However, although BICR lessens some potential biases, it does not remove all biases from evaluations of treatment effectiveness. In fact, as typically conducted, BICRs may introduce bias because of informative censoring, which results from having to censor unconfirmed locally determined progressions. In this article, we discuss the rationale for BICR and different ways of implementing independent review. We discuss the limitations of these approaches and review published trials that report implementing BICR. We demonstrate the existence of informative censoring using data from a randomized phase II trial. We conclude that double-blinded trials with consistent application of measurement criteria are the best means of ensuring unbiased trial results. When such designs are not practical, BICR is not recommended as a general strategy for reducing bias. However, BICR may be useful as an auditing tool to assess the reliability of marginally positive results.

scholarly journals Tumor treating fields in the management of Glioblastoma: opportunities for advanced imaging

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikram S. Soni ◽  
Ted K. Yanagihara
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Electric Fields ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Imaging Biomarkers ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Alternating Electric Fields ◽  
Promising Line

AbstractAlternating electric fields have been successfully applied to cancer cells in-vitro to disrupt malignant progression and this antimitotic therapy has now been proven to be efficacious in Phase II and Phase III randomized clinical trials of patients with glioblastoma. With additional clinical trials ongoing in a number of other malignancies, there is a crucial need for a better understanding of the radiographic predictors of response and standardization of surveillance imaging interpretation. However, many radiologists have yet to become familiarized with this emerging cancer therapy and there is little active investigation to develop prognostic or predictive imaging biomarkers. This article provides an overview of the pre-clinical data that elucidate the biologic mechanisms of alternating electric fields as a cancer therapy. Results from clinical trials in patients with glioblastoma are then reviewed while elaborating on the several limitations to adoption of this promising line of treatment. Finally, a proposal for the development of imaging markers as a means of overcoming some of these limitations is made, which may improve treatment utilization by augmenting patient selection not only in glioblastoma, but also other malignant conditions for which this therapy is currently being evaluated.

Clinical research in surgical oncology: An analysis of clinicaltrials.gov.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 591-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber S Menezes ◽  
Alison Barnes ◽  
Adena S Scheer ◽  
Husein Moloo ◽  
Robin P Boushey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Adjuvant Therapies

591 Background: The conduction of randomized clinical trials has expanded in medical specialties, but to a far lesser degree in surgery. This is due to design challenges with standardization of treatment, blinding and lack of surgeon equipoise. The objective of this study was to assess the current landscape of clinical trials in surgical oncology registered at clinicaltrials.gov. Methods: Data was extracted from clinicaltrials.gov using the following search engine criteria: ‘Cancer’ as Condition, ‘Surgery OR Operation OR Resection’ as Intervention, and Non-Industry sponsored. The search was limited to Canada and the United States and included trials registered from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2011. The search was performed on March 23, 2011 by three investigators in parallel. The total number of oncology trials was also obtained. Results: Of 9990 oncology trials, 1049 (10.5%) included any type of surgical intervention. Of these trials, 125 (11.9%; 1.3% of all oncology trials) manipulated a surgical variable, 773 (73.7%) assessed adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapies, and 151 (14.4%) were observational studies. Trials assessing adjuvant therapies focused on systemic treatment (362 trials, 46.8%) and multimodal therapy (129 trials, 16.7%). Of the 125 trials where surgery was the manipulated variable, 59 trials (47.2%) focused on surgical techniques (including minimally invasive) or devices, 45 trials (36.0%) studied invasive diagnostic methods, and 21 trials (16.8%) evaluated surgery vs. no surgery. The majority of the 125 trials were non- randomized (72, 57.6%), and Phase III trials accounted for less than one-quarter (29, 23.2%). Conclusions: The number of registered surgical oncology trials is small in comparison to oncology trials as a whole. Clinical trials specifically designed to assess surgical interventions are vastly outnumbered by trials focusing on adjuvant therapies, and are frequently non-randomized. Randomized surgical oncology trials account for <1% of all registered cancer trials. Barriers to the design and implementation of randomized trials in surgical oncology need to be clarified to facilitate higher-level evidence in surgical decision making.

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document