Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgery

Limitations of prospective surgical oncology trials — a US view

  • News & Views
  • Published:

From Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

View current issue Sign up to alerts

Surgeons should promote the best standard of surgical care through evidence-based results from prospective trials. European surgical investigators, in this issue of the journal, highlight the difficulties in patient accrual to surgical trials, patient and physician biases, and referral and quality assurance hurdles. We expand on these points and suggest some solutions.

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

References

  1. Evrard, S. et al. What can we learn from oncology surgical trials? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.176 (2015).

  2. American College of Surgeons Clinical Research Program, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Nelson, H. D. & Hunt, K. K. Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery. Volume 1: Breast, Lung, Pancreas, Colon. (Walters Kluwer Health, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Faries, M. B. et al. The impact on morbidity and length of stay of early versus delayed complete lymphadenectomy in melanoma: results of the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial 1. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 17, 3324–3329 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Giuliano, A. E. et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann. Surg. 252, 426–432 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Buren, G. et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of pancreaticoduodenectomy with and without routine intraperitoneal drainage. Ann. Surg. 259, 605–612 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleshman, J. et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection versus open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314, 1346–1355 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr V. Suzanne Klimberg, MD, Professor of Surgery and Pathology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, AR, USA, for her helpful suggestions for the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, 75390-8548, Texas, USA

    Charles M. Balch

  2. Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, 55905, Minnesota, USA

    Heidi Nelson

  3. Inova Fairfax Hopsital, Cancer Center, 3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, 22042, Virginia, USA

    John E. Niederhuber

Authors
  1. Charles M. Balch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heidi Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John E. Niederhuber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles M. Balch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balch, C., Nelson, H. & Niederhuber, J. Limitations of prospective surgical oncology trials — a US view. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 13, 6–8 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.212

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.212

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation