BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.38628.561123.7C, (Published 18 November 2005)

PAPERS

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 ¹, Heloisa Soares ¹, Robert Wells ², Mike Clarke ³, Iztok Hozo ⁴, Archie Bleyer ², Gregory Reaman ⁵, Iain Chalmers ⁶, Benjamin Djulbegovic ^1*

¹ Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
² University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
³ UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford
⁴ Indiana University Northwest
⁵ Children's Oncology Group
⁶ James Lind Library, Oxford

^* Correspondence to: djulbebm{at}moffitt.usf.edu.

Objectives To assess how often new treatments for childhood cancer assessed in phase III randomised trials are superior or inferior to standard treatments and whether the pattern of successes and failures in new treatments is consistent with uncertainty being the ethical basis for enrolling patients in such trials.

Design Observational study.

Setting Phase III randomised controlled trials carried out under the aegis of the Children's Oncology Group between 1955 and 1997, regardless of whether they were published.

Main outcome measures Overall survival, event free survival, and treatment related mortality.

Results 126 trials were included, involving 152 comparisons and 36 567 patients. The odds ratio for overall survival with experimental treatments was 0.96 (99% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03), indicating that new treatments are as likely to be inferior as they are to be superior to standard treatments. This result was not affected by publication bias, methodological quality, treatment type, disease, or comparator.

Conclusions New treatments in childhood cancer tested in randomised controlled trials are, on average, as likely to be inferior as they are to be superior to standard treatments, confirming that the uncertainty principle has been operating.

---

(Accepted 16 September 2005)
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Uncertainty of outcome removes ethical dilemma in trials of cancer drugs
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

In praise of uncertainty

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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

Steven Joffe, David P Harrington, Stephen L George, Ezekiel J Emanuel, Lindsay A Budzinski, and Jane C Weeks
BMJ 2004 328: 1463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?

Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, and Ian Roberts
BMJ 2004 328: 514-517. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

Heloisa P Soares, Stephanie Daniels, Ambuj Kumar, Mike Clarke, Charles Scott, Suzanne Swann, and Benjamin Djulbegovic
BMJ 2004 328: 22-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

Joel Lexchin, Lisa A Bero, Benjamin Djulbegovic, and Otavio Clark
BMJ 2003 326: 1167-1170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Uncertainty about clinical equipoise

Fred Gifford, R J Lilford, Benjamin Djulbegovic, and David L Sackett
BMJ 2001 322: 795. [Extract] [Full Text]

Trials: the next 50 years

Richard Peto and Colin Baigent
BMJ 1998 317: 1170-1171. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Bowel preparation at home in elderly people

M Lewis, F Rugg-Gunn, C Don, W Woods, and C D Hanning
BMJ 1997 314: 74. [Extract] [Full Text]

Reply from dissenting author

Alastair R Moodie
BMJ 1996 313: 362. [Extract] [Full Text]

Raised adult blood pressure linked to failure to achieve growth potential in utero

Catherine M Law, Caroline H D Fall, Christopher N Martyn, and Clive Osmond
BMJ 1996 312: 1479. [Extract] [Full Text]

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]  
• Treasure, T. (2008). Pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: weak evidence and no randomised trials. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 33: 300-302 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Chalkidou, K., Hoy, A., Littlejohns, P. (2007). Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. JRSM 100: 453-460 [Full text]  
• Treasure, T., Utley, M. (2007). Ten traps for the unwary in surgical series: A case study in mesothelioma reports. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 133: 1414-1418 [Full text]  
• Kumar, A., Soares, H. P., Balducci, L., Djulbegovic, B. (2007). Treatment Tolerance and Efficacy in Geriatric Oncology: A Systematic Review of Phase III Randomized Trials Conducted by Five National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Cooperative Groups. JCO 25: 1272-1276 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Treasure, T. (2006). The evidence on which to base practice: different tools for different times. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 30: 819-824 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Phase III Cancer Trials in Children

Paul S Gaynon
bmj.com, 11 Jan 2006 [Full text]

Re: Evaluating Treatment Success in Phase III Cancer Trials in Children

Benjamin Djulbegovic, et al.
bmj.com, 14 Jan 2006 [Full text]