BMJ  2004;328:1463 (19 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.38118.685289.55 (published 26 May 2004)

Paper

Satisfaction of the uncertainty principle in cancer clinical trials: retrospective cohort analysis

Steven Joffe, assistant professor1, David P Harrington, professor2, Stephen L George, professor3, Ezekiel J Emanuel, director4, Lindsay A Budzinski, graduate student5, Jane C Weeks, associate professor6

1 Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA, 2 Department of Biostatistical Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, 3 Cancer and Leukemia Group B Statistical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA, 4 Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1156, USA, 5 Lesley College, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA, 6 Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston

Correspondence to: S Joffe steven_joffe{at}dfci.harvard.edu

Objective To assess whether publicly funded adult cancer trials satisfy the uncertainty principle, which states that physicians should enrol a patient in a trial only if they are substantially uncertain which of the treatments in the trial is most appropriate for the patient. This principle is violated if trials systematically favour either the experimental or the standard treatment.

Design Retrospective cohort study of completed cancer trials, with randomisation as the unit of analysis.

Setting Two cooperative research groups in the United States.

Studies included 93 phase III randomised trials (103 randomisations) that completed recruitment of patients between 1981 and 1995.

Main outcome measures Whether the randomisation favoured the experimental treatment, the standard treatment, or neither treatment; effect size (outcome of the experimental treatment compared with outcome of the standard treatment) for each randomisation.

Results Three randomisations (3%) favoured the standard treatment, 70 (68%) found no significant difference between treatments, and 30 (29%) favoured the experimental treatment. The average effect size was 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.28), reflecting a slight advantage for the experimental treatment.

Conclusions In cooperative group trials in adults with cancer, there is a measurable average improvement in disease control associated with assignment to the experimental rather than the standard arm. However, the heterogeneity of outcomes and the small magnitude of the advantage suggest that, as a group, these trials satisfy the uncertainty principle.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Are experimental treatments for cancer in children superior to established treatments? Observational study of randomised controlled trials by the Children's Oncology Group
Ambuj Kumar, Heloisa Soares, Robert Wells, Mike Clarke, Iztok Hozo, Archie Bleyer, Gregory Reaman, Iain Chalmers, and Benjamin Djulbegovic
BMJ 2005 331: 1295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Cancer trials satisfy the uncertainty principle
BMJ 2004 328: 0. [Full Text]

Doctors are not scientists
Richard Smith
BMJ 2004 328: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Djulbegovic, B., Kumar, A., Soares, H. P., Hozo, I., Bepler, G., Clarke, M., Bennett, C. L. (2008). Treatment Success in Cancer: New Cancer Treatment Successes Identified in Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trials Conducted by the National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Cooperative Oncology Groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Intern Med 168: 632-642 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Gluud, L. L. (2006). Bias in Clinical Intervention Research. Am J Epidemiol 163: 493-501 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Kumar, A., Soares, H., Wells, R., Clarke, M., Hozo, I., Bleyer, A., Reaman, G., Chalmers, I., Djulbegovic, B. (2005). Are experimental treatments for cancer in children superior to established treatments? Observational study of randomised controlled trials by the Children's Oncology Group. BMJ 331: 1295- [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Are experimental treatments truly (on average) superior to standard treatments?
Benjamin Djulbegovic, et al.
bmj.com, 28 May 2004 [Full text]
Ask the wrong question - Get the wrong answer
Tzippora Shochat
bmj.com, 18 Jun 2004 [Full text]
The Uncertainty Principle
Jeremy Weinbren
bmj.com, 19 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Does this tell us much?
Bakhtyari Arash
bmj.com, 22 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Prior beliefs and the uncertainty principle
Waseem Sharieff
bmj.com, 23 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Whose Equipose matters?
Robert C Kane, MD
bmj.com, 27 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Are cancer trials frequently overpowered?
Dr Georg Roggla, et al.
bmj.com, 28 Jun 2004 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ