Comparative effectiveness research in oncology: The need for clarity, transparency and vision

Cancer Investigation

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 593-597

  Lyman, Gary H ^a  

^a DUKE CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; NOTE; PATIENT SAFETY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; SIMULATION; ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; THEORETICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 67649986362     PISSN: 07357907     EISSN: 15324192     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07357900903109952     Document Type: Note

References (12)

1. Boyle, P.; Levin, B.World Cancer Report: 2008. Lyon, International Agency for Research on Cancer 2008.
2. Somerfield, M.R.; Einhaus, K.; Hagerty, K.L.; et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: opportunities and challenges. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26, 4022-4026.
3. Riley, R.D.; Sauerbrei, W.; Altman, D.G. Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond. Br J Cancer 2009, 100, 1219-1229.
4. Altman, D.G.; Lyman, G.H. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998, 52, 289-303. (Pubitemid 29056101)
5. Paik, S.; Shak, S.; Tang, G.; et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004, 351, 2817-2826. (Pubitemid 40051905)
6. Paik, S.; Tang, G.; Shak, S.; et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptorpositive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24, 3726-3734.
7. Lyman, G.H.; Kuderer, N.M. Gene expression profile assays as predictors of recurrence-free survival in early-stage breast cancer: a metaanalysis. Clin Breast Cancer 2006, 7, 372-379.
8. Hornberger, J.; Cosler, L.E.; Lyman, G.H. Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2005, 11, 313-324.
9. Lyman, G.H.; Cosler, L.E.; Kuderer, N.M.; et al. Impact of a 21- gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 2007, 109, 1011-1018.
10. McShane, L.M.; Altman, D.G.; Sauerbrei, W.; et al. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97, 1180-1184. (Pubitemid 41258223)
11. Allegra, C.J.; Jessup, J.M.; Somerfield, M.R.; et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27, 2091-2096.
12. Teutsch, S.M.; Bradley, L.A.; Palomaki, G.E.; et al: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009, 11, 3-14.