Interpreting the results of clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy: the importance of reporting concurrent supportive care.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract #6138 Background: Important outcomes for cancer patients depend not only on anti-cancer treatment, but also on supportive measures that aim to alleviate symptoms of cancer or side effects due to therapy. A comparison of cancer therapies that is evaluated in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) may therefore be significantly confounded by differences in supportive treatments between trial arms.
 Methods: We performed a systematic review of the past 5 years of randomized, phase III trials evaluating breast cancer chemotherapy to assess the prevalence of confounding effect of differential use of supportive treatments. We identified publications in MEDLINE (OVID: 1996-week 3 2008) using the search terms: exp breast neoplasms/dt; limit to clinical trial, phase III, limit to year 2003-2008. Inclusion criteria were phase III clinical trials with at least one of the following outcomes: nausea, vomiting, febrile neutropenia, infection, diarrhea, pain.
 Results: We identified 202 studies from the initial search. 62 studies met inclusion criteria; 32 trials involved women with advanced breast cancer, and 30 trials involving women withearly breast cancer. All trials were open-label. Significant differences were reported between trial arms for the incidence of: nausea or vomiting (14 trials, 23%), febrile neutropenia (14 trials, 23%), grade 3-4 diarrhea (7 trials, 11%), and myalgia, arthralgia, or pain ( 5trials, 8%). Fifty-two studies (82%) did not report the antiemetics used, and only 5 studies (8%) reported the type, dose, and frequency of antiemetics. Twenty-four trials (39%) did not report whether prophylaxis growth factors could be used , 24 trials (39%) indicated whether primary or secondary prophylaxis was allowed, and only 5 trials (8%) reported both the dose and the type of growth factor used in all arms of the trial. Twenty-one trials (33%) provided at least minimal guidelines regarding the use of antibiotics for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. One trial stated that anti-diarrhea treatment was used according to guidelines established for the anticancer therapy. No trial reported guidelines for treatment of pain, myalgia, or arthralgia.
 Discussion: Despite substantial differences demonstrated in important outcomes of toxicity, a minority of phase III trials report guidelines for use of supportive medication. Since all of the phase III trials were open-label, patients in one arm of the trial may receive different supportive treatments than those in other arms, leading to potential confounding of the results. Differences in supportive treatment are especially important for trials in advanced breast cancer, where symptom control is a major goal of treatment. In order to minimize confounding in cancer chemotherapy trials, guidelines for the type, dose, and frequency of supportive care drugs should be provided and the percent of patients in each arm of the trial receiving these medications should be reported. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6138.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,072 | 0,185 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».