Advertisement

Biometrie

  • L.R. Pilz
  • U. Abel
  • M. Pritsch
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Klinische Studien sind strukturierte Erfahrung. In ihnen geht es darum, unter transparenten, vorher festgelegten, überprüfbaren Bedingungen Informationen über die Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit von Therapien zu gewinnen (DeMets 2012).

Literatur

  1. Abel U (1995) Die zytostatische Chemotherapie fortgeschrittener Karzinome, 2. vollst. überarbeitete Aufl. Hippokrates, Stuttgart, S 56ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Abel U, Windeler J (1995) Erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte klinischer Studien. 1. Irrtümer in der Bewertung medizinischer Therapien – Ursachen und Konsequenzen. Internist Prax 35:613–629Google Scholar
  3. Abel U, Koch A (1999) The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 52:487–497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Adam J, Förster W (1996) Meta-Analysen – wirklich der Weisheit letzter Schluß? Münch Med Wschr 138:37–39Google Scholar
  5. Bischoff W, Miller F (2009) A seamless Phase II/III design with sample-size re-estimation. J Biopharm Stat 19:595–609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Black N (1996) Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 312:1215–1218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borzak S, Ridker PM (1995) Discordance between metaanalyses and large-scale randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 123:873–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bretz F, Schmidli H, Koenig F, Racine A, Maurer W (2006) Confirmatory seamless Phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts (with Discussion). Biometrical Journal 48: 623–634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bretz F, Koenig F, Brannath W, Glimm E, Posch M (2009) Adapative designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Stat Med 28:1181–1217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brufman G, Colajori E, Ghilezan N, Lassus M, Martoni A, Perevodchikova N, Tosello C, Viaro D, Zielinski C, and the Epirubicin High-Dose (HEPI010) Study Group (1997) Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m2 versus 50 mg/m2) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rates. An international randomised phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. Annals of Oncology 8: 155–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Buyse M, Pedbois P (1996) On the relationship between response to treatment and survival time. Stat Med 15:2797–2812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan A-W, Hrosbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotsche PC, Altman DC (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in Randomized Trials. Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, Hróbjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Doré CJ, Parulekar WR, Summerskill WS, Groves T, Schulz KF, Sox HC, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D (2013) SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Ann Intern Med 158:200–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K, Hróbjartsson A, Schluz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleza-Jeric K, Laupacis A, Moher D (2013) SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 346:e7586PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chevret S (2012) Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only? Statist Med 31:1002–1013Google Scholar
  16. CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2002) Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/090899en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  17. CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2005) Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/13939104en.pdf.: Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  18. CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2006) Guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/020595en.pdf. Zugegriffen:).9. Mai 2013
  19. CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2007a) Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human clinical trials with investigational medicinal products. London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/2836707enfin.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9.Mai 2013
  20. CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2007b) Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/245902enadopted.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  21. CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2008) Appendix 1 to the Guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/2799408en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  22. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, Chen LL, Podoloff DA, Benjamin RS (2007) Correlation of Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Treated at a Single Institution With Imatinib Mesylate: Proposal of New Computed Tomography Response Criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753–1759PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Chow SC, Liu J-P. (2004) Design and analysis of clinical trials. 2nd ed. Wiley, New York, S 44ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Chow SC, Chang M (2007) Adaptive design methods in clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  25. Concato J (2004) Observational versus experimental studies. What’s the evidence for a hierarchy? NeuroRx 1:341–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. CONSORT Statement (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), Consort Group, http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement.Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  27. Cook DI, Gebski VJ, Keech AC (2004) Subgroup analysis in clinical trials. MJA 180:289–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Cook TD, De Mets DL (2008) Introduction to statistical methods for clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. Crowley J, Ankerst DP. (Hrsg) (2006) Handbook of statistics in oncology. 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, S 119ffGoogle Scholar
  30. CTEP: Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (NCI); NIH, Bethesda, MD http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/templates_applications.htm. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  31. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364:911–912PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. DeMets DL (2012) Current development in clinical trials: issues old and new. Statist Med 31:2944–2954Google Scholar
  33. DeMets DL, Pocock SJ, Julian DG (1999) The agonizing negative trend in monitoring of clinical trials. Lancet 354:1983–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz J, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterborrk PJ, von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ionnidis JPA, Simes J, Williamson PR (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication and outcome reporting bias. PLoSONE 3(8):e3081.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081Google Scholar
  35. Easterbrook PhJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337:867–872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Coordinating Center, Boston MA, http://www.ecog.org. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  37. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Europ J Cancer 45:228–247Google Scholar
  38. Edeline J, Boucher E, Rolland Y, Vauléon E, Pracht M, Perrin C, Le Roux C, Raoul JL (2012) Comparison of tumor response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 118:147–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Edler L (1993) Phase-II-Studien in der Onkologie: Wie viele Patienten sind erforderlich? Tumordiagn Ther 14:1–9Google Scholar
  40. European Medicines Agency (1998) ICH Topic E8: Note for Guidance on general considerations for clinical trials. CPMP/ICH/291/95. London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/029195en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  41. European Medicines Agency (2013) Clinical efficacy and safety guidelines. http://www.ema.europa.eu/htms/human/humanguidelines/efficacy.htm. Zugegriffen: 9. Juni 2013
  42. Eyawo O, Lee C-W, Rachlis B, Mills EJ (2008) Reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence randomized trials for major prostaglandins: A systematic survey of the ophthalmology literature. Trials 9:69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Fairclough DL (2010) Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. Second ed. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  44. Fayers PM, Machin D (2007) Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd ed. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  45. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientist fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoSONE 4(5):e5738.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738Google Scholar
  46. Fang YJ, Su Z (2012) Hybridization of conditional and predictive power for futility assessment in sequential clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: a resampling approach. Contemp Clin Trials 33:138–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. FDA (2007) Guidance for industry. Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. US. Dept Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071590.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  48. FDA (2009) Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Draft Guidance.US. Dept Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  49. Fleming TR (2005) Surrogate Endpoints and FDA’s accelerated approval process. Health Affairs 24:67–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Fossâ SD, Skovlund E (2000) Interim analyses in clinical trials: why do we plan them? J Clin Oncol 18:4007–4008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Friede T, Kieser M (2001) A comparison of methods for adaptive sample size adjustment. Stat Med 20:3861–3873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Friede T, Kieser M (2006) Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biom J. 48:537–555PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL (2010) Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 4th ed. Springer New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Gan HK, You B, Pond GR, Chen EX (2012) Assumptions of Expected Benefits in Randomized Phase III Trials Evaluating Systemic Treatments for Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:590–598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P (2007) When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ 334:349–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Granone P, Trodella L, Margaritora S et al. (2000) Radiotherapy versus follow-up in the treatment of pathological stage Ia and Ib non-small cell lung cancer. Early stopped analysis of a randomized controlled study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 18:418–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Green S, Benedetti J, Crowley J (1997) Clinical trials in oncology. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Drugs and Biologics. Draft Guidance 2011. Available online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryIn formation/Guidances/UCM259421.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  59. Gupta SK (2011) Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect Clin Res 2:109–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Gupta SK (2011) Non-inferiority clinical trials: Practical issues and current regulatory perspective. Indian J Pharmacol 43:371–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Hartz A, Bentler S, Charlton M, Lanska D, Butani, Y, Soomro GM, Benson K (2005): Assessing observational studies of medical treatments. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2:8. Available from: http://www.ete-online.com/content/2/1/8
  62. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Cox C, Eberly SW, Kris MG (1997) A dilemma in analysis: issues in the serial measurement of quality of life in patients with advanced lung cancer. Lung Cancer 18:119–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Hollinshead A (1991) Active specific immunotherapy and immunechemotherapy in the treatment of lung and colon cancer. Semin Oncol 7:199–210Google Scholar
  64. Hollinshead AC, Stewart THM, Takita H, Dalbow M, Concannon J (1987) Adjuvant specific active lung cancer immunotherapy trials. Cancer 60:1249–1262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, Seshan VE, Spriggs DR (2008) A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies. Clin Trials 5:465–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2000) Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman & Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  67. Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2006) Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypothesis selection at interim: opportunities and limitations. Biom J 48: 650–655Google Scholar
  68. Julious SA (2010) Sample sizes for clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  69. Kairalla JA, Coffey CS, Thomann MA, Muller KE (2012) Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities. Trials 13:145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Kreuser E-D, Fiebig HH, Scheulen ME et al. (1998) Standard operating procedures and organization. Onkologie 21 (Suppl 3):1–70Google Scholar
  71. Kunz R, Khan KS, Kleinjen J, Antes G (2009) Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten und Meta-Analysen. Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
  72. Lai TL, Lavori PW, Shih M-L (2012) Adaptive Trial Designs. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 52:101–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Lai TL, Lavori PW, Shih M-C (2012) Sequential design of Phase II–III cancer trials. Statist Med 31:1944–1960Google Scholar
  74. Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I (2006) The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 333:597–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Lewis JA, Facey KM (1998) Statistical shortcomings in licensing applications. Stat Med 17:1663–1673PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, Neaton JD, Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Shih WJ, Siegel JP, Stern H (2012) The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. New Engl J Med 367:1355–1360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH (2009) Sample size tables for clinical studies. 3rd ed. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  78. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. JClin Epidemiol 62: 1006–1012Google Scholar
  80. Moyé LA (2003) Multiple analyses in clinical trials: fundamentals for investigators. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Munro AJ (1998) What now for postoperative radiotherapy for lung cancer? Commentary. Lancet 352:250–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Naylor CD (1997) Meta-analysis and the meta-analysis of clinical research. BMJ 315:617–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Osoba D (2011) Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. Ther Adv Med Oncol 3:57–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Piantadosi S (2005) Clinical trials: a methodological perspective. 2nd edition. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  85. Pilz LR, Manegold C, Schmid-Bindert G (2012) Statistical considerations and endpoints for clinical lung cancer studies: can progression free survival (PFS) substitute overall survival (OS) as a valid endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer? Transl Lung Cancer Res 1:26–35Google Scholar
  86. Pocock SJ (1983) Clinical trials – a practical approach. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  87. PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group (1998) Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomised controlled trials. Lancet 352:257–263Google Scholar
  88. PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group (2010) Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (review) (2010) Cochrane Database Syst Rev; (2): CD002142. DOI: 10.1002/1465–1858.CD002142.pub2.Google Scholar
  89. RANDI2 Randomization system, DKFZ Heidelberg, http://www.randi2.org. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013
  90. Randomizer (2013) Randomizer for clinical trials 1.8.3, Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich, http://www.randi2.org/ https://www.randomizer.at/demo/web/about.php. Zugegriffen: 21. Juni 2013
  91. Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL et al. (2000) Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. Control Clin Trials 21:415–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) Berlin, Germany. http://www.recist.com/
  93. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM (2002) Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  94. Royal Statistical Society (2007) Report of the Working Party on Statistical Issues in First-in-Man studies. www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=1713σ
  95. Rubinstein L, Crowley J, Ivy P, LeBlanc M, Sargent D (2009) Randomized Phase II Designs. Clin Cancer Res 15:1883–1890PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Sackett DL (1979) Bias in analytical research. J Chronic Disease 32:51–63Google Scholar
  97. Sackett DL (1998) Was ist Evidenz-basierte Medizin? Editorial. In: Perleth M, Antes G (Hrsg) Evidenzbasierte Medizin. Wissenschaft im Praxisalltag. MMV Medizin Verlag, München, S 9–12Google Scholar
  98. Salek S (1998) Compendium of quality of life instruments. Wiley, Chichester New YorkGoogle Scholar
  99. Schrimpf D, Manegold C, Pilz LR (2013) Design of clinical studies: Adaptive randomization and progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint in clinical studies of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Clin Pharmaceutical Therapeutics 52:84–86Google Scholar
  100. Schrimpf D, Pilz LR (2012) Adaptive randomization procedures for the web-based randomization system RANDI2. Int J Clin Pharmaceutical Therapeutics 52:85–86Google Scholar
  101. Schrimpf D, Plotnicki L, Pilz LR (2011) Choice and simulation of the randomization procedure for clinical trials. Int J Clin Pharmaceutical Therapeutics 49:91–92Google Scholar
  102. Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. JAMA 273:408–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group (2010) Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152:726–732PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Schumacher M, Schulgen G (2008) Methodik klinischer Studien. 3. Aufl. Springer - New York - HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  105. Schwarzer G, Galandi D, Antes G, Schumacher M (2000) Meta-Analyse randomisierter klinischer Studien, Publikations-Bias und Evidence-based Medicine. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 31:1–21Google Scholar
  106. Seymour L, Ivy SP, Sargent D, Spriggs D, Baker L, Rubenstein L, Ratein MJ, LeBlanc M, Stewart D, Crowley J, Groshan S, Humphrey JS, West P, Berry D (2010) The design of Phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: Consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin Cancer Res 16:1764–1769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Soares HP, Kumar A, Daniels S, Cantor A, Hozo I, Clark M, Serdarevic F, Gwede C, Trotti A, Djulbegovic B (2005) Evaluation of new treatment sin radiation oncology. JAMA 293:970–978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Stallard N (2012) Optimal sample sizes for phase II clinical trials and pilot studies. Stat Med 31:1031–1042PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Sylvester R, Bartelink H, Rubens R (1994) A reversal of fortune: practical problems in the monitoring and interpretation of an EORTC breast cancer trial. Stat Med 13:1329–1335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Tang J-L, Liu JLY (2000) Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiology 53:477–484Google Scholar
  111. Tang PA, Bentzen, SM, Chen EX, Siu LL (2007) Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 29: 4562–4568Google Scholar
  112. Trotta F, Apolone G, Garattini S, Tafuri G (2008) Stopping a trial early in oncology for patients or for industry? Ann Oncol 19:1347–1353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Unnebrink K, Windeler J (1999) Sensitivity analysis by worst and best case assessment: is it really sensitive? Drug Inf J 33:835–839Google Scholar
  114. Vastag B (2006) Cancer fraud case stuns research community, prompts reflection on peer review process. JNCI 98:374–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF (2013) Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol (published in advance access) doi:10.1093/annonc/mds636Google Scholar
  116. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R (1998) Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 19:159–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Wallack MK, Sivanandham M, Balch CM et al. (1995) A phase III randomized, double-blind, multi-institutional trial of vaccinia melanoma oncolysate-active specific immunotherapy for patients with stage II melanoma. Cancer 75:34–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Wallack MK, Sivanandham M, Whooley B, Ditaranto K, Bartolucci AA (1996) Favorable clinical responses in subsets of patients from a randomized, multi-institutional melanoma vaccine trial. Ann Surg Oncol 3:110–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Wang M, Dignam JJ, Zhang QE, DeGroot JF, Mehta MP, Hunsberger S (2012) Integrated phase II/III clinical trials in oncology: A case study. Clin Trials 9:741–747PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM (2007) Statistics in medicine - reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. New Engl J Med 357:2189–2194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Weiss RB, Rifkin RM, Stewart FM, Theriault RL, Williams LA, Herman AA, Beveridge RA (2000) High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: an onsite review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 355:999–1003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Weiss RB, Gill GG, Hudis CA (2001) An on-site audit of the South African trial of high-dose chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and associated publications. J Clin Oncol 19:2771–2777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Whitehead A (2002) Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  124. Windeler J (1993) Das Intention-to-treat-Prinzip in klinischen Arzneimittelprüfungen. Arzneimitteltherapie 11:103–111Google Scholar
  125. Wittes J, Brittain E (1990) The role of internal pilot studies in increasing the efficiency of clinical trials. Stat Med 9:65–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Zohar S, Lian Q, Levy V, Cheung K, Ivanova A, Chevret S (2008) Quality assessment of Phase I dose-finding cancer trials: proposal of a checklist. Clin Trials 5:478–485PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • L.R. Pilz
    • 1
  • U. Abel
    • 2
  • M. Pritsch
    • 3
  1. 1.Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim/DekanatUniversität HeidelbergMannheimDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und InformatikUniversitätsklinikum HeidelbergHeidelbergDeutschland
  3. 3.Abteilung Translationale Immunologie und NCT StudienzentraleNationales Zentrum für Tumorerkrankungen (NCT)HeidelbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations