Search

Quantitative assessments of tumor burden and modeling of longitudinal growth could improve phase II oncology trials. To identify obstacles to wider use of quantitative measures we obtained recorded linear tumor measurements from three published lung cancer trials. Model-based parameters of tumor burden change were estimated and compared with similarly sized samples from separate trials. Time-to-tumor growth (TTG) was computed from measurements recorded on case report forms and a second radiologist blinded to the form data. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-based progression-free survival (PFS) measures were perfectly concordant between the original forms data and the blinded radiologist re-evaluation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 1), but these routine interrater differences in the identification and measurement of target lesions were associated with an average 18-week delay (range, −20 to 55 weeks) in TTG (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.32). To exploit computational metrics for improving statistical power in small clinical trials will require increased precision of tumor burden assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To assess the frequency with which editorial authors report personal conflict of interest and investigate a possible association between the presence of such conflicts and favorable opinion. Methods: Eligible studies were editorials of phase III clinical trials of antitumor drugs or symptom management published from January 2007 to December 2009 in four top oncology journals. Data from the editorials were collected and each editorial opinion was classified as favorable, neutral or unfavorable with respect to the experimental therapy. Results: Fifty‐four editorials were included: 23 (43%) reported at least one conflict of interest, with the most frequent one being consultancy fees. Conclusions of editorial authors were classified as favorable in 18 editorials (33%). Sensitivity analysis found an association between self-reported conflict of interest of the editorial author and editorial favorable opinion (RR:2.7; 95% CI 1.2–6.1; p =0.019). Discussion: Besides the high proportion of conflict of interest among editorial authors discussing phase III clinical trials, study interpretation may be influenced by their financial relationships with industry. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]