What difference does it make to be treated in a clinical trial? A pilot study

Clinical and Investigative Medicine

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 179-183

  Weijer, Charles ^a   Freedman, Benjamin ^a   Fuks, Abraham ^a   Robbins, James ^b   Shapiro, Stanley ^a   Skrutkowska, Myriam ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; METHOTREXATE;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER THERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ONCOLOGY; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURVIVAL RATE;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL TRIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PILOT PROJECTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0029901229     PISSN: 0147958X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Lennox EL, Stiller CA, Morris Jones PH et al: Nephroblastoma: treatment during 1970-3 and the effect on survival of inclusion in the first MRC trial. BMJ 1979; 2: 567-569
2. Meadows AT, Kramer S, Hopson R et al: Survival in childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Invest 1983; 1: 49-55
3. Quoix E, Finkelstein H, Wolkove N et al: Treatment of small-cell lung cancer on protocol: potential bias of results. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1314-1320
4. Ward LC, Fielding JWL, Dunn JA et al: The selection of cases for randomised trials: a registry survey of concurrent trial and non-trial patients. Br J Cancer 1992; 66: 943-950
5. Winger MJ, MacDonald DR, Schold C et al: Selection bias in clinical trials of anaplastic glioma. Ann Neurol 1989; 26: 531-534
6. Karjalainen S, Palva I: Do treatment protocols improve end results? A study of survival of patients with multiple myeloma in Finland. BMJ 1989; 299: 1069-1072
7. Bertelson K: Protocol allocation and exclusion in two Danish randomized trials in ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 1991; 64: 1172-1176
8. Hjorth M, Holmberg E, Rodjer S et al: Impact of active and passive exclusions on the results of a clinical trial in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1992; 80: 55-61
9. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: NSABP Protocol B-17: a Protocol to Evaluate the Natural History and Treatment of Patients with Non-invasive Intraductal Adenocarcinoma, NSABP Operations Office, Pittsburgh, 1985
10. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: NSABP Protocol B-18: a "Unified" Trial to Compare Short, Intensive Preoperative Systemic Adriamycin-Cyclophosphamide Therapy with Similar Therapy Administered in Conventional Postoperative Fashion, NSABP Operations Office, Pittsburgh, 1988
11. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: NSABP Protocol B-19: a Clinical Trial to Compare Sequential Methotrexate, 5-flourouracil with Conventional CMF in Primary Breast Cancer Patients with Negative Nodes and Estrogen-receptor-negative Tumors, NSABP Operations Office, Pittsburgh, 1988
12. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: NSABP Protocol B-20: a Clinical Trial to Determine the Worth of Chemotherapy and Tamoxifen over Tamoxifen Alone in the Management of Patients with Primary Invasive Breast Cancer, Negative Axillary Nodes and Estrogen-receptor-positive Tumors, NSABP Operations Office, Pittsburgh, 1988
13. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: NSABP Protocol B-21: a Clinical Trial to Determine the Worth of Tamoxifen and the Worth of Breast Irradiation in the Management of Patients with Node-negative Occult, Invasive Breast Cancer Treated by Lumpectomy, NSABP Operations Office, Pittsburgh, 1989
14. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: NSABP Protocol B-22: a Clinical Trial to Evaluate Dose Intensification and Increased Cumulative Dose on Disease-free Survival and Survival of Primary Breast Cancer Patients with Positive Axillary Nodes Receiving Postoperative Adriamycin-Cyclophosphamide Therapy, NSABP Operations Office, Pittsburgh, 1989
15. Bonadonna G, Brusamolino E, Valagussa P et al: Combination chemotherapy as an adjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1976; 294: 405-410
16. Tancini G, Bonadonna G, Valagussa P et al: Adjuvant CMF in breast cancer: comparative 5-year results of 12 versus 6 cycles. J Clin Oncol 1983; 1: 2-10
17. Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV et al: Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and flourouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponding tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8: 1483-1496
18. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1989: 19-20, 82-133, 140-149
19. Hryniuk W, Levine MN: Analysis of dose intensity for adjuvant chemotherapy trials in stage II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1162-1170
20. Wood WC, Budman DR, Korzun AH et al: Dose and dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II, node positive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1253-1259
21. Weijer C: The breast cancer research scandal: addressing the issues. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 152: 1195-1197