Decision making process in oncology practice: Is the information available and what should it consist of?

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 165-170

  Trédaniel, Jean ^a   Blay, Jean Yves ^b   Goldwasser, François ^c   Asselain, Bernard ^d   Koscielny, Serge ^e   Labareyre, Cécile De ^f   Balogh, Nives ^f   Bismut, Hervé ^g   Misset, Jean Louis ^a   Marty, Michel ^e  

^a SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

^b EDOUARD HERRIOT HOSPITAL   (France)

^c Hôpital Cochin ^*  (France)

^d INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^e INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^f GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (France)

^g Strategik and Numerik   (France)

Author keywords

Chemotherapy; Clinical trials; Decision making process; Guidelines; Time related parameters

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; COLORECTAL CANCER; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL PRACTICE; ONCOLOGY; OVARY CANCER; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

EID: 21044460129     PISSN: 10408428     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2005.01.003     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. G. Browman Background to clinical guidelines in cancer: SOR, a programmatic approach to guideline development and aftercare Br J Cancer 84 2 2001 1 3
2. M. Van Glabbeke, W. Steward, and J.P. Armand Non-randomised phase II trials of drug combinations: often meaningless, sometimes misleading. Are there alternative strategies? Eur J Cancer 38 5 2002 635 638
3. E.H. Estey, and P.F. Thall New designs for phase 2 clinical trials Blood 102 2 2003 442 448
4. R. Simon, and R.E. Wittes Methodological guidelines for reports of clinical trials Cancer Treat Rep 69 1 1985 1 3
5. C. Begg, M. Cho, and S. Eastwood Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA 276 8 1996 637 639
6. D. Moher, K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman CONSORT Group The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials Clin Oral Investig 7 1 2003 2 7
7. C.G. Varricchio, and J.A. Sloan The need for and characteristics of randomized, phase III trials to evaluate symptom management in patients with cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 94 16 2002 1184 1185
8. P. Therasse European organisation for research and treatment of cancer data center evaluation of response: new and standard criteria Ann Oncol 13 Suppl. 4 2002 127 129
9. M. Van Glabbeke, J. Verweij, I. Judson, O.S. Nielsen EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Progression-free rate as the principal end-point for phase II trials in soft-tissue sarcomas Eur J Cancer 38 4 2002 543 549
10. F.A. Shepherd, J. Dancey, and R. Ramlau Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy J Clin Oncol 18 10 2000 2095 2103
11. D. Cunningham, S. Pyrhonen, and R.D. James Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer Lancet 352 9138 1998 1413 1418
12. W. Ten Bokkel Huinink, M. Gore, and J. Carmichael Topotecan versus paclitaxel for the treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer J Clin Oncol. 15 6 1997 2183 2193
13. S.A. Cannistra The ethics of early stopping rules: who is protecting whom? J Clin Oncol 22 9 2004 1542 1545
14. J.P. Ioannidis, S.J. Evans, P.C. Gotzsche, R.T. O'Neill, D.G. Altman, K. Schulz, D. Moher CONSORT Group Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement Ann Intern Med 141 10 2004 781 788
15. J. Exposito, J. Hernandez, A. Fernandez Feijoo, T. Nieto, and E. Briones New chemotherapy treatments in advanced cancer patients: an easily applicable evaluation of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness Acta Oncol 42 8 2003 895 902