| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Buyse, Marc, et al.
(author)
-
Assessment of the consistency and robustness of results from a multicenter trial of remission maintenance therapy for acute myeloid leukemia.
- 2011
-
In: Trials. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1745-6215. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ABSTRACT: Background Data from a randomized multinational phase 3 trial of 320 adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) demonstrated that maintenance therapy with 3-week cycles of histamine dihydrochloride plus low-dose interleukin-2 (HDC/IL-2) for up to 18 months significantly improved leukemia-free survival (LFS) but lacked power to detect an overall survival (OS) difference. Purpose To assess the consistency of treatment benefit across patient subsets and the robustness of data with respect to trial centers and endpoints. Methods Forest plots were constructed with hazard ratios (HRs) of HDC/IL-2 treatment effects versus no treatment (control) for prospectively defined patient subsets. Inconsistency coefficients (I2) and interaction tests (X2) were used to detect any differences in benefit among subsets. Robustness of results to the elimination of individual study centers was performed using "leave-one-center-out" analyses. Associations between treatment effects on the endpoints were evaluated using weighted linear regression between HRs for LFS and OS estimated within countries. Results The benefit of HDC/IL-2 over controls was statistically consistent across all subsets defined by baseline prognostic variables. I2 and P-values of X2 ranged from 0.00 to 0.51 and 0.14 to 0.91, respectively. Treatment effects were statistically significant in 14 of 28 subsets analyzed. The "leave-one-center-out" analysis confirmed that no single center dominated (P-values ranged from 0.004 to 0.020 [mean 0.009]). The HRs representing the HDC/IL-2 effects on LFS and OS were strongly correlated at the country level (R2 = 0.84). Limitations Small sample sizes in some of the subsets analyzed. Conclusions These analyses confirm the consistency and robustness of the HDC/IL-2 effect as compared with no treatment. LFS may be an acceptable surrogate for OS in future AML trials. Analyses of consistency and robustness may aid interpretation of data from multicenter trials, especially in populations with rare diseases, when the size of randomized clinical trials is limited. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00003991
|
|
| 3. |
- Francis, Prudence, et al.
(author)
-
Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel : Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial
- 2008
-
In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 100:2, s. 121-133
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Docetaxel is more effective than doxorubicin for patients with advanced breast cancer. The Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial tested the effect of incorporating docetaxel into anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy and compared sequential vs concurrent administration of doxorubicin and docetaxel. Methods: Patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer (n = 2887) were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: 1) sequential control (four cycles of doxorubicin at 75 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil [CMF]), 2) concurrent control (four cycles of doxorubicin at 60 mg/m2 plus cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of CMF), 3) sequential docetaxel (three cycles of doxorubicin at 75 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of docetaxel at 100 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of CMF), 4) concurrent docetaxel (four cycles of doxorubicin at 50 mg/m2 plus docetaxel at 75 mg/m2, followed by three cycles of CMF). The primary comparison evaluated the efficacy of including docetaxel regardless of schedule and was planned after 1215 disease-free survival (DFS) events (ie, relapse, second primary cancer, or death from any cause). Docetaxel and control treatment groups were compared by log-rank tests, and hazard ratios (HR) of DFS events were calculated by Cox modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Due to a lower-than-anticipated rate of relapse, this analysis was performed after 5 years with 732 events. Patients in control arms had a 5-year DFS of 73% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70% to 75%). Docetaxel treatment resulted in an improvement in DFS of borderline statistical significance compared with control treatment (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.00, P =. 05). However, DFS in the sequential docetaxel arm was better than that in the concurrent docetaxel arm (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.00) and in the sequential control arm (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.98). Conclusions: Incorporating docetaxel into anthracycline-based therapy resulted in an improvement in DFS that was of borderline statistical significance. However, important differences may be related to doxorubicin and docetaxel scheduling, with sequential but not concurrent administration, appearing to produce better DFS than anthracycline-based chemotherapy. © The Author(s).
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Landray, Martin J., et al.
(author)
-
Improving public health by improving clinical trial guidelines and their application
- 2017
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 38:21, s. 1632-1637B
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Evidence generated from randomized controlled trials forms the foundation of cardiovascular therapeutics and has led to the adoption of numerous drugs and devices that prolong survival and reduce morbidity, as well as the avoidance of interventions that have been shown to be ineffective or even unsafe. Many aspects of cardiovascular research have evolved considerably since the first randomized trials in cardiology were conducted. In order to be large enough to provide reliable evidence about effects on major outcomes, cardiovascular trials may now involve thousands of patients recruited from hundreds of clinical sites in many different countries. Costly infrastructure has developed to meet the increasingly complex organizational and operational requirements of these clinical trials. Concerns have been raised that this approach is unsustainable, inhibiting the reliable evaluation of new and existing treatments, to the detriment of patient care. These issues were considered by patients, regulators, funders, and trialists at a meeting of the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Roundtable in October 2015. This paper summarizes the key insights and discussions from the workshop, highlights subsequent progress, and identifies next steps to produce meaningful change in the conduct of cardiovascular clinical research.
|
|
| 6. |
- Punt, Cornelis J A, et al.
(author)
-
Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials : a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials.
- 2007
-
In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 99:13, s. 998-1003
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Disease-free survival is increasingly being used as the primary endpoint of most trials testing adjuvant treatments in cancer. Other frequently used endpoints include overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and time to recurrence. These endpoints are often defined differently in different trials in the same type of cancer, leading to a lack of comparability among trials. In this Commentary, we used adjuvant studies in colon cancer as a model to address this issue. In a systematic review of the literature, we identified 52 studies of adjuvant treatment in colon cancer published in 1997–2006 that used eight other endpoints in addition to overall survival. Both the definition of these endpoints and the starting point for measuring time to the events that constituted these endpoints varied widely. A panel of experts on clinical research on colorectal cancer then reached consensus on the definition of each endpoint. Disease-free survival—defined as the time from randomization to any event, irrespective of cause—was considered to be the most informative endpoint for assessing the effect of treatment and therefore the most relevant to clinical practice. The proposed guidelines may add to the quality and cross-comparability of future studies of adjuvant treatments for cancer.
|
|
