Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical Trial Results Applied to Management of the Individual Cancer Patient

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application of clinical trial results to the management of the individual cancer patient is not always straightforward. The results of a clinical trial indicate the “average” effect of an intervention, often expressed in terms of an absolute risk reduction, which is an estimate of the likelihood of benefit for a particular patient. However, within any clinical trial, there might be differences between groups of patients in underlying pathology, genetics, or biology, and some patients might benefit more from a new treatment than others. Thus, within a clinical trial, it might also be useful to group together patients with similar characteristics, and test for subgroup interaction. The test for interaction will indicate whether the magnitude of benefit differs from one prognostic subgroup to the next (a quantitative interaction). Much less common are qualitative interactions, in which a new treatment is beneficial in one subgroup but harmful in another. If the test for subgroup interaction is significant, then the effects of treatment may indeed differ between subgroups of patients, but this should be confirmed in other trials before a treatment is implemented in clinical practice.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baum M, Houghton J. Contribution of randomized controlled trials to understanding and management of early breast cancer. Br Med J 1999;319:568–571

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mant D. Can randomized trials inform clinical decisions about individual patients? Lancet 1999;353:743–746

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pollack AV. Guidelines for the correct conduct of clinical research in surgery. Eur J Surg 1998;164:243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McMahon AD. Study control, violators, inclusion criteria and defining explanatory and pragmatic trials. Stat Med 2002;21:1365–1376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Helms PJ. “Real world” pragmatic clinical trials: what are they and what do they tell us? Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2002;13:4–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peto R, Baignent C. Trials: the next 50 years. Br Med J 1998;17:1170–1171

    Google Scholar 

  7. Senn S. Individual response to treatment: is it a valid assumption? Br Med J 2004;329:966–968

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tramer MR, Walder B. Number needed to treat (or harm). World J Surg 2005;29:576–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. Br Med J 1995;310:452–454

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rothwell PM. Subgroup analysis in randomized controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365:176–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sackett Dl. Applying overviews and meta-analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:61–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Feinstein AR. The problem of cogent subgroups: a clinicostatistical tragedy. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:297–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Peto R. Clinical trials. In Price P, Sikora K, editors, Treatment of Cancer, Chapter 52, New York, Chapman and Hall, 1995

  14. ISIS-2 Collaborative Group. Randomized trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 1988;2:349–360

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, et al. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1991;266:93–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lu M, Lyden PD, Brott TG, et al. Beyond subgroup analysis: improving the clinical interpretation of treatment effects in stroke research. J Neurosci Methods 2005;143:209–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000;355:1064–1069

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gray R, Clarke M, Collins R, et al. The EBCTCG overview of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. What are the implications for future studies? Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Ann NY Acad Sci 1993;698:339–348

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and of cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer. An overview of 61 randomized trials among 28,896 women. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1681–1692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 1998;351:1451–1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ismail Jatoi MD, PhD.

Additional information

The opinions and assertions contained in this article represent the private views of the authors and should not be construed as reflecting the official views of the U.S. Departments of the Army, Navy, or Defense, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jatoi, I., Proschan, M.A. Clinical Trial Results Applied to Management of the Individual Cancer Patient. World J. Surg. 30, 1184–1189 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-006-0073-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-006-0073-x

Keywords

Navigation