Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

New technologies in cancer and their assessment. The clinical surgeon’s point of view

  • Educational Series
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The assessment of new technologies in oncological surgery is an important part of clinical research in cancer. The special characteristics of surgeons and surgical techniques determine particular problems. In this review, from the perspective of efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency, problematic specific aspects are discussed for diagnostic and therapeutic technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NHS Management Executive (1992) Assessing the effects of health technologies. Department of Health, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Murray A, Lourenco T, de Verteuil R et al (2006) Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 10:1–141

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. González de Dios J (2001) De la medicina basada en la evidencia a la evidencia basada en la medicina. An Esp Pediat 55:429–439

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwartz D, Lellouch J (1967) Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in clinical trials. J Chron Dis 20:637–648

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J et al (2001) Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med 345:725–730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hundahl SA, Macdonald JS, Benedetti J, Fitzsimmons T (2002) Surgical treatment variation in a prospective, randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy in gastric cancer: the effect of undertreatment. Ann Surg Oncol 9:278–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reeves B (1999) Health-technology assessment in surgery. Lancet 353:3–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ioannidis J, Evans S, Gotzsche P et al (2004) Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 141:781–788

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shakespeare TP, Gebski VJ, Veness MJ, Simes J (2001) Improving interpretation of clinical studies by use of confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk-benefit contours. Lancet 357:1349–1353

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Simon SD (2006) Statistical evidence in medical trials. What do the data really tell us? Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Fields KK, Sullivan D (1998) High-dose chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer: benefit/risk analysis. Cancer Control 5:394–405

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Riegelman R, Schroth WS (1993) Adjusting the number needed to treat: incorporating adjustments for the utility and timing of benefits and harms. Med Decis Making 13:247–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulzer M, Mancini GB (1996) “Unqualified success’ and ‘unmitigated failure’: number-needed-to-treat-related concepts for assessing treatment efficacy in the presence of treatment-induced adverse events. Int J Epidemiol 25:704–712

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Marescaux J, Clément JM, Tassetti V et al (1998) Virtual reality applied to hepatic surgery si mulation: the next revolution. Ann Surg 228: 635–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mutter D, Bouras G, Marescaux J (2005) Digital technologies and quality improvement in cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:689–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM (2002) Diagnostic testing and prognosis: the randomised controlled trial in diagnostic research. In: Knottnerus JA (ed.) The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. BMJ books, London, pp 61–80

    Google Scholar 

  17. Knottnerus JA, Dinant G, Schayck OP (2002) The diagnostic before-after study to assess clinical impact. In: Knottnerus JA (ed.) The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. BMJ books, London, pp 81–93

    Google Scholar 

  18. Paradis C (2008) Bias in surgery research. Ann Surg 248:180–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hlatky MA, Face MD, Califf RM et al (1988) Comparison of predictions based on observational data with the results of RCT of coronary artery bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 11: 237–245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. Lancet 342:1887–1892

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG et al (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med 147: 163–194

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sacristan JA, Soto J, Galende I (1998) Evaluación de la efectividad mediante asignación aleatoria utilizando bases de datos: ¿ evidencia basada en la medicina? Med Clin (Barc) 111: 623–627

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. General Accounting Office (1992) Cross design synthesis: a new strategy for medical effectiveness research. GAO, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, General Hospital of Castellón, Avda. Benicasim, s/n, ES-12004, Castellón de la Plana, Spain

    Javier Escrig Sos & David Martínez Ramos

Authors
  1. Javier Escrig Sos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Martínez Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier Escrig Sos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Escrig Sos, J., Martínez Ramos, D. New technologies in cancer and their assessment. The clinical surgeon’s point of view. Clin Transl Oncol 10, 713–718 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-008-0277-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-008-0277-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation