Big data: Are large prospective randomized trials obsolete in the future?

Breast

Volumn 24, Issue , 2015, Pages S15-S18

  Hudis, Clifford A ^a,b  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Big data; Cancer; Clinical trials

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; BIG DATA; BREAST CANCER; CANCER LEARNING INTELLIGENCE NETWORK FOR QUALITY; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); BREAST NEOPLASMS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PROCEDURES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA COLLECTION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84948711430     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: 15323080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization: Globocan 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortalitly and Prevalence Worldwide 2012. Assessed 16 March 2015 at: . http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.
2. Meldrum M.L. A brief history of the randomized controlled trial: from oranges and lemons to the gold standard. Hemoto Oncol Clin August 1, 2000, 14(4):745-760. 10.1016/S0889-8588(05)70309-9.
3. EBCTCG Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012, 379:432-444. 10.1016/50140-6736(11)61625-5.
4. Burns P.B., Rohrich R.J., Chung K.C. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011 Jul, 128(1):305-310. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171.
5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Guidelines & Clinical Resources. NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus. Accessed 16 March 2015 at: . http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/categories_of_consensus.asp.
6. Poonacha T.K., Go R.S. Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:186-191. 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6414.
7. Beatson G.T. On the treatment of inoperable cases of carcinoma of the mamma: suggestions for a new method of treatment, with illustrative cases. Lancet 18 July 1896, 148(3803):162-165. (Originally published as Volume 2, Issue 3803). 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)72384-7.
8. Eichler H.-G., Oye K., Baird L.G., Abadie E., Brown J., Drum C.L., et al. Adaptive licensing: taking the next step in the evolution of drug approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012, 91:426-437. 10.1038/clpt.2011.345.
9. Forte G.J., Hanley A., Hagerty K., Kurup A., Neuss M.N., Mulvey T.M. American Society of Clinical Oncology National Census of Oncology Practices: preliminary report. JOP January 2013, 9(1):9-19. 10.1200/JOP.2012.000826.
10. Sledge G.W., Hudis C.A., Swain S.M., Yu P.M., Mann J.T., Hauser R.S., et al. ASCO's approach to a learning health care system in oncology. J Oncol Pract 2013, 9:145-148. 10.1200/JOP.2013.000957.
11. Hudis C.A. Science and society: fifty years later-the 2014 presidential address. Am Soc Clin Oncol 2015, 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.3699.
12. Gray R.G., Rea D., Handley D., Bowden S.J., Perry P. aTTom: long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years in 6953 women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013, 31. (suppl; abstr 5).
13. Davies C., Pan H., Godwin J., Gray R., Arriagada R., Raina V., et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 2013, 381:805-816. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1.
14. Weintraub W.S., Grau-Sepulveda M.V., Weiss J.M., O'Brien S.M., Peterson E.D., Kolm P., et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med 2012, 366:1467-1476. 10.1056/NEJMoa1110717.
15. Mauri L. Why we still need randomized trials to compare effectiveness. N Engl J Med 2012, 366:1548-1630. 10.1056/NEJMe1202866.