Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 41, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1528-1532

  Perez Gracia, Jose Luis ^a   Muñoz, Maria ^b   Williams, Grant ^c   Wu, Jun ^d   Carrasco, Eva ^b   Garcia Ribas, Ignacio ^b   Peiro, Ana ^b   Lopez Picazo, Jose Maria ^a   Gurpide, Alfonso ^a   Chopitea, Ana ^a   Martín Algarra, Salvador ^a   García Foncillas, Jesus ^a   Blatter, Johannes ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY CLINIC OF NAVARRA   (Spain)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (Spain)

^c CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^d ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Response assessment; Response guidelines

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CYTOTOXICITY; DATA BASE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 22144492198     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.01.023     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. J.L. Hayward, P.P. Carbone, and J.C. Heuson Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer: a project of the Programme on Clinical Oncology of the International Union Against Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland Cancer 39 1977 1289 1294
2. J.L. Hayward, R.D. Rubens, and P.P. Carbone Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer. A project of the programme on clinical oncology of the International Union against Cancer, Geneva, Switzerland Eur J Cancer 14 1978 1291 1292
3. A.B. Miller, B. Hoogstraten, and M. Staquet Reporting results of cancer treatment Cancer 47 1981 207 214
4. S. Green, and G.R. Weiss Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria Invest New Drugs 10 1992 239 253
5. P. Therasse, S.G. Arbuck, and E.A. Eisenhauer New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada J Natl Cancer Inst 92 2000 205 216
6. L.M. Leemis, and K.S. Trivedi A comparison of approximate interval estimators for the Bernoulli parameter The American Statistician 50 1996 63 68
7. J. Cohen A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 1960 37 46
8. J. Landis, and G.G. Koch The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data Biometrics 33 1977 159 174
9. RECIST Working Party. How to combine the results of two subsequent evaluations to define the best overall response. June 2000. Available from URL: http://www.eortc.bc/.
10. P. Thiesse, L. Ollivier, and D. Di Stefano-Louineau Response rate accuracy in oncology trials: reasons for interobserver variability, Groupe Francais d'Immunotherapie of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer J Clin Oncol 15 1997 3507 3514
11. L. Biganzoli, C. Lohrisch, and R. Paridacns Analysis of two EORTC trials in metastatic breast cancer support the recommendation for external response review in trials with response rate as primary endpoint Eur J Cancer 36 suppl 5 2000 S90 (abstract 227)
12. S.J. Gwyther, M.S. Aapro, and S.R. Hatty Results of an independent oncology review board of pivotal clinical trials of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer Anticancer Drugs 10 1999 693 698