Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Cancer studies often lack necessary rigor to answer key questions

Date:
April 29, 2013
Source:
Duke University Medical Center
Summary:
Fueled in part by an inclination to speed new treatments to patients, research studies for cancer therapies tend to be smaller and less robust than for other diseases.

Fueled in part by an inclination to speed new treatments to patients, research studies for cancer therapies tend to be smaller and less robust than for other diseases.

This raises some questions about how cancer therapies will work in practice, according to researchers at Duke Medicine, who published an analysis of nearly 9,000 oncology clinical research studies online April 29, 2013, in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. The studies they looked at were registered on the ClinincalTrials.gov website from 2007-10.

The analysis is part of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, a public-private partnership founded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Duke University to identify and promote practices to improve clinical research.

"We need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the clinical studies in oncology," said Bradford Hirsch, M.D., assistant professor of medicine and lead author of the study. "There are a lot of reasons for why cancer studies are different than those for other illnesses -- cancer is a very grave disease and for a long time there weren't a lot of treatment options. But what we're trying to understand is if those differences justify differences in the clinical research being conducted."

Hirsch and colleagues found that oncology clinical research studies were predominantly small, early phase trials that evaluate a single treatment without comparing it to other therapies. Larger, more rigorous trials randomly assign patients to different treatments, "blinding" both doctors and patients from knowing who received the investigational therapy in an effort to eliminate bias.

This orientation toward less robust design differs significantly from other areas of medicine. The trend is partially explained by the accelerated approval process embraced by the FDA since 1992 to improve access to treatments for life-threatening diseases such as cancer. As part of that process, early-phase clinical research studies often measure goals other than extending survival.

In addition, drugs marketed for one use and used "off label" for others have less stringent requirements for winning additional regulatory approvals.

"An inherent tension arises between the desire to use new, life-saving treatments and the imperative to develop the evidence that patients, clinicians, regulatory agencies, and advocacy groups need to make sound decisions." Hirsch said. "Unfortunately, the high prevalence of small studies that lack rigor limits the ability to assess the evidence supporting specific treatments."

Hirsch said the analysis also brought to light some disparities between the incidence and mortality of some cancer types, and the volume of clinical research being conducted. For example, lung cancer has the highest incidence, with 14.5 percent of all new diagnoses and 27.6 percent of all cancer deaths in 2010, but was the focus of only 9.2 percent of studies on the register. Meanwhile, lymphoma was the focus of 6.6 percent of studies, while it represents 4.8 percent of cancer cases and 3.8 percent of deaths.

"People who enroll in clinical trials expect their participation to lead to future benefits for patients," said Nancy Roach, chair of the board of directors for Fight Colorectal Cancer. "Small, single-institution trials are not likely to change the standard of care. I see this paper as a call to action to encourage academic institutions to collaborate with each other on more robust trials that may ultimately lead to clinical benefit."

In addition to Hirsch, study authors include Robert M. Califf, Steven K. Cheng, Asba Tasneem, John Horton, Karen Chiswell, Kevin A. Schulman, David M. Dilts and Amy P. Abernethy.

Financial support was provided by a grant from the FDA to Duke University for the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Duke University Medical Center. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Cite This Page:

Duke University Medical Center. "Cancer studies often lack necessary rigor to answer key questions." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 April 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130429164816.htm>.
Duke University Medical Center. (2013, April 29). Cancer studies often lack necessary rigor to answer key questions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 18, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130429164816.htm
Duke University Medical Center. "Cancer studies often lack necessary rigor to answer key questions." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130429164816.htm (accessed April 18, 2014).

Share This



More Health & Medicine News

Friday, April 18, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Scientists Create Stem Cells From Adult Skin Cells

Scientists Create Stem Cells From Adult Skin Cells

Newsy (Apr. 17, 2014) The breakthrough could mean a cure for some serious diseases and even the possibility of human cloning, but it's all still a way off. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Obama: 8 Million Healthcare Signups

Obama: 8 Million Healthcare Signups

AP (Apr. 17, 2014) President Barack Obama gave a briefing Thursday announcing 8 million people have signed up under the Affordable Care Act. He blasted continued Republican efforts to repeal the law. (April 17) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Is Apathy A Sign Of A Shrinking Brain?

Is Apathy A Sign Of A Shrinking Brain?

Newsy (Apr. 17, 2014) A recent study links apathetic feelings to a smaller brain. Researchers say the results indicate a need for apathy screening for at-risk seniors. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Could Even Casual Marijuana Use Alter Your Brain?

Could Even Casual Marijuana Use Alter Your Brain?

Newsy (Apr. 16, 2014) A new study conducted by researchers at Northwestern and Harvard suggests even casual marijuana use can alter your brain. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:
from the past week

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins