Advertisement

Analysis of Clinical Trial Data

  • Maurice J. Staquet
  • Stefan Suciu
  • Richard Sylvester
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 46)

Abstract

One of the main problems encountered in drawing conclusions from clinical trials is the wide variability in the methods used to assess treatment efficacy. In addition, it is often difficult to put the results of a study in their proper perspective due to the large differences between trials with respect to the patient population studied and variations in the definition and evaluation of end points and toxicity. When reporting the results of treatment, it is recommended to indicate [1, 2]:
  • The total number of patients randomized or registered, irrespective of eligibility or evaluability.

  • The total number of patients randomized or registered who are eligible and treated, regardless of the amount of treatment they received.

  • The total number of patients randomized or registered, eligible, and adequately treated according to the protocol (so-called “fully evaluable”).

Keywords

Prognostic Factor Response Category Clinical Trial Data Prior Therapy Linear Logistic Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. WHO Offset Publication No 48, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47: 207–214, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Staquet M, Sylvester R, Jasmin C. Guidelines for the preparation of E.O.R.T.C. cancer clinical trial protocols. Eur J Cancer 16: 871–875, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis Th E, McFadden ET, Carbone PP. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5: 649–655, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon R, Wittes RE. Methodologic guidelines for reports of clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 69: 1–3, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moertel CG, Hanley JA. The effect of measuring error on the results of therapeutic trials in advanced cancer. Cancer 38: 388–384, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Armitage P, Gehan EA. Statistical methods for the identification and use of prognostic factors. Int J Cancer 13: 16–36, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartolucci A. Estimation and comparison of proportions. In Cancer Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, Buyse M, Staquet M, Sylvester R (eds.)., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mantel N, Haenzel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22: 719–748, 1959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cox DR. Analysis of Binary Data. London: Methuen and Co., 1970.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon R. Importance of prognostic factors in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 68: 185–192, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sylvester RJ, Machin D, Staquet M. A comparison of the alternative methods of calculating survival curves arising from clinical trials. Biomedicine (special issue) 28: 49–53, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53: 457–481, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brookmeyer R, Crowley J. A confidence interval for the median survival time. Biometrics 38: 29–41, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peto J. The calculation and interpretation of survival curves. In Cancer Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, Buyse M, Staquet M, Sylvester R (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gehan EA, A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika 52: 203–223, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breslow N. Comparison of survival curves. In Cancer Clinical Trials; Methods and Practice, Buyse M, Staquet M, Sylvester R (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cox DR. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Statist Soc (B) 34: 187–220, 1972.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee ET. Statistical Methods for Survival Data Analysis. Belmont, Calif: Lifetime Learning Publication, 1980.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Byar DP. Analysis of survival data: Cox and Weibull models with covariates. In Statistics in Medical Research: Methods and Issues, with Applications in Cancer Research, Mike V, Stanley KE (eds.). New York: John Wiley, 1982, pp. 365–401.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Staquet MJ, Rozencweig M, Von Hoff DD, Muggia FM. The delta and epsilon errors in the assessment of cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 63: 1917–1921, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurice J. Staquet
  • Stefan Suciu
  • Richard Sylvester

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations