Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 361–363 | Cite as

Response rates — An evolution

  • Elizabeth Poplin
  • Laurence Baker
Short Communication Response Rates, Chemotherapy Agents

Abstract

The documented frequency of response of cancers to common chemotherapy agents and combinations appears to have decreased over the decades. Multiple reasons exist for this decline including: changes in eligibility and evaluability criteria; changes in the type of patients entered onto trial; and, altered criteria for response and methods for response assessment. The disinclination to publish negative results also permits a bias in a favor of overestimating a drug's efficacy. Circumspection now is advised in assessing data from older trials.

Key words

Response rates Chemotherapy agents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Seifert P, Baker LB, Reed ML, Vaitkevicius VK (1975) Comparison of continuously infused 5-fluorouracil with bolus injection in treatment of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma. Cancer 36: 123–128Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kemeny N, Israel K, Niedzwiecki D, Chapman D, Botet J, Minsky B, et al (1990) Randomized study of continuous infusion fluorouracil versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 8: 313–318Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lokich JJ, Ahlgren JD, Gullo JJ, Philips JA, Fryer JG (1989) A prospective randomized comparison of continuous infusion fluorouracil with a conventional bolus schedule in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A Mid-Atlantic Oncology Program study. J Clin Oncol 7: 425–432Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Godfrey T, Wilbur D (1972) Clinical experience with mitomycin in large infrequent doses. Cancer 29: 647–682Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore GE, Bross IDJ, Ausman R, Nadler S, Jones R, Slack N, Rimm A (1968) Effects of mitomycin-C (NSC-26980) in 346 patients with advanced cancers. Cancer Chemother Rep 52: 67–83Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker LH, Izbicki RM, Vaitkevicius VK (1976) Phase II study of porfiromycin vs mitomycin-C utilizing acute intermittent schedules. Med Pediatr Oncol 2: 207–213Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poplin EA, LoRusso PDO, Lokich JJ, Gullo JJ, Leming PD, Schulz JJ, Veach SR, McCulloch W, Baker L, Schein P (1994) Randomized clinical trial of mitomycin-C with or without pretreatment with WR-2721 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 33: 415–419Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gottlieb JA, Baker LH, Quagliana JM, Luce JK, Whitecar JP Jr, et al (1972) Chemotherapy of sarcomas with a combination of Adriamycin and dimethyl triazeno imidazole carboxamide. Cancer 30: 1632–1638Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker LH, Frank J, Fine G, Balcerzak SP, Stephens RL, Stuckey WJ, Rivkin S, Saiki J, Ward JJ (1987) Combination chemotherapy using Adriamycin, DTIC, cyclophosphamide, and actinomycin D for advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a randomized comparative trial. A phase III, Southwest Oncology Group study (7613). J Clin Oncol 5: 851–861Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zalupski M, Metch B, Balcerzak S, Fletcher WS, Chapman R, Bonnet JD, Weiss GR, Ryan J, Benjamin RS, Baker LH (1991) Phase III comparison of doxorubicin and decarbazine given by bolus versus infusion in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Natl Cancer Inst 83: 926–932Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr (1987) Publication bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 8: 343–353Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Begg CB, Berlin JA (1989) Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst 181: 107–115Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hryniuk WM, Figueredo A, Goodyear M (1987) Applications of dose intensity to problems in chemotherapy of breast and colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol 14: 3–11Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hryniuk W, Bush H (1984) The importance of dose intensity in chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2: 1281–1287Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A (1981) Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47: 207–214Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Warr D, McKinney S, Tannock I (1984) Influence of measurement error on assessment of response to anticancer chemotherapy: proposal for new criteria of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 2: 1040–1045Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moertel CG, Hanley JA (1976) The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 38: 388–394Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lavin PT, Flowerdew G (1980) Studies in variation associated with the measurement of solid tumors. Cancer 46: 1286–1290Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Einhorn CH, Crawford ED, Shipley WU, Loehrer D, Williams SD (1993). Cancer of the testes. In: De Vita (ed) Cancer: principles and practice of oncology, 3rd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, p 1138Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Poplin
    • 1
  • Laurence Baker
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Hematology and Oncology, Harper HospitalWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations