How to Interpret Results?
Every year, a mass of new information is published in the urologic literature that brings varied levels of scientific evidence to the medical community. This information is unfortunately not always objectively presented, despite the peer-review process implemented by most journals and congresses and the widespread adoption of reporting guidelines such as CONSORT. Intentional or more often unintentional misuse or misinterpretation of statistics, inadequate trial methodology, the natural tendency of humans to seek confirmation of their prior beliefs and to give more focus to the more statistically significant findings are the most commonly encountered flaws in the medical literature. In this chapter, we will illustrate some of these pitfalls, with the aim to exercise the reader to critical thinking in appraising published research. In these examples, we will focus on publications reporting comparisons between therapeutic interventions for prostate cancer, as modern clinical trials are becoming increasingly complex and therefore more difficult to appraise for the nonstatistically trained reader.
KeywordsProstate Cancer Radical Prostatectomy Androgen Deprivation Therapy Advanced Prostate Cancer Biochemical Failure
- Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF et al (2009) Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N + patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 55:261–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL et al (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American urological association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177:540–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Howland RH (2011) What you see depends on where you’re looking and how you look at it: publication bias and outcome reporting bias. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 15:1–3Google Scholar
- Oei SG, Helmerhorst FM, Keirse MNC (1999) Postcoital test should be performed as routine infertility test. BMJ 318:1008–1009Google Scholar
- Roach MI, Hanks G, Thames HJ et al (2006) Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG–ASTRO phoenix consensus conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:965–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2007) Guidance for industry clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071590.pdf Accessed on 21 Jan 2012)
- Valicenti R, Deslivio M, Hanks G et al (2006) Posttreatment prostatic-specific antigen doubling time as a surrogate endpoint for prostate cancer-specific survival: an analysis of radiation therapy oncology group protocol 92–02. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66(4):1064–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U et al (2009) Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate- specific antigen: ARO 96–02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 27:2924–2930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar