Real practice studies in oncology: A positive perspective

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

Abstract

In the majority of phase III clinical trials, patients are generally excluded on the basis of specific comorbidities, performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥ 2, age ≥ 65 years, previous malignancies, brain metastases, active infections, psychiatric disorders, non-measurable disease, number and type of previous lines of chemotherapies or biologic therapies. A question is raised: Can results of phase III studies be extended to the general population? There is increasing attention to and a resurgence of some terms as "real world" or "real practice" which are wrongly viewed as contrary to clinical trial protocols. In fact, the general perception is that a contraposition exists between "wrong" (retrospective and biased) and "right" (prospective, randomized, well statistically designed) clinical research. We have to change this perspective. Real practice studies, generally retrospective in their nature, deserve to be reevaluated; biases are physiologically present but their punctual and rigorous description and analysis can help the interpretation of and in some cases reinforce results and their hypothesis-generating power. The correct and balanced interaction between clinical trials and real practice reports can help the scientific community to improve the knowledge on anti-cancer drug efficacy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)228-230
Number of pages3
JournalWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
Volume10
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1 2018

Fingerprint

Clinical Protocols
Clinical Trials
Phase III Clinical Trials
Biological Therapy
Psychiatry
Comorbidity
Neoplasms
Retrospective Studies
Age Groups
Neoplasm Metastasis
Drug Therapy
Brain
Infection
Research
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Population
Power (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Gastrointestinal oncology
  • Methodology
  • Real practice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Real practice studies in oncology : A positive perspective. / Ottaiano, Alessandro.

In: World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Vol. 10, No. 9, 01.09.2018, p. 228-230.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

@article{8cce61b816a649d5a5e2fafca500cace,
title = "Real practice studies in oncology: A positive perspective",
abstract = "In the majority of phase III clinical trials, patients are generally excluded on the basis of specific comorbidities, performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥ 2, age ≥ 65 years, previous malignancies, brain metastases, active infections, psychiatric disorders, non-measurable disease, number and type of previous lines of chemotherapies or biologic therapies. A question is raised: Can results of phase III studies be extended to the general population? There is increasing attention to and a resurgence of some terms as {"}real world{"} or {"}real practice{"} which are wrongly viewed as contrary to clinical trial protocols. In fact, the general perception is that a contraposition exists between {"}wrong{"} (retrospective and biased) and {"}right{"} (prospective, randomized, well statistically designed) clinical research. We have to change this perspective. Real practice studies, generally retrospective in their nature, deserve to be reevaluated; biases are physiologically present but their punctual and rigorous description and analysis can help the interpretation of and in some cases reinforce results and their hypothesis-generating power. The correct and balanced interaction between clinical trials and real practice reports can help the scientific community to improve the knowledge on anti-cancer drug efficacy.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Gastrointestinal oncology, Methodology, Real practice",
author = "Alessandro Ottaiano",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4251/wjgo.v10.i9.228",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "228--230",
journal = "World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology",
issn = "1948-5204",
publisher = "Baishideng Publishing Group",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Real practice studies in oncology

T2 - A positive perspective

AU - Ottaiano, Alessandro

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - In the majority of phase III clinical trials, patients are generally excluded on the basis of specific comorbidities, performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥ 2, age ≥ 65 years, previous malignancies, brain metastases, active infections, psychiatric disorders, non-measurable disease, number and type of previous lines of chemotherapies or biologic therapies. A question is raised: Can results of phase III studies be extended to the general population? There is increasing attention to and a resurgence of some terms as "real world" or "real practice" which are wrongly viewed as contrary to clinical trial protocols. In fact, the general perception is that a contraposition exists between "wrong" (retrospective and biased) and "right" (prospective, randomized, well statistically designed) clinical research. We have to change this perspective. Real practice studies, generally retrospective in their nature, deserve to be reevaluated; biases are physiologically present but their punctual and rigorous description and analysis can help the interpretation of and in some cases reinforce results and their hypothesis-generating power. The correct and balanced interaction between clinical trials and real practice reports can help the scientific community to improve the knowledge on anti-cancer drug efficacy.

AB - In the majority of phase III clinical trials, patients are generally excluded on the basis of specific comorbidities, performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥ 2, age ≥ 65 years, previous malignancies, brain metastases, active infections, psychiatric disorders, non-measurable disease, number and type of previous lines of chemotherapies or biologic therapies. A question is raised: Can results of phase III studies be extended to the general population? There is increasing attention to and a resurgence of some terms as "real world" or "real practice" which are wrongly viewed as contrary to clinical trial protocols. In fact, the general perception is that a contraposition exists between "wrong" (retrospective and biased) and "right" (prospective, randomized, well statistically designed) clinical research. We have to change this perspective. Real practice studies, generally retrospective in their nature, deserve to be reevaluated; biases are physiologically present but their punctual and rigorous description and analysis can help the interpretation of and in some cases reinforce results and their hypothesis-generating power. The correct and balanced interaction between clinical trials and real practice reports can help the scientific community to improve the knowledge on anti-cancer drug efficacy.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Gastrointestinal oncology

KW - Methodology

KW - Real practice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054828499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054828499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i9.228

DO - 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i9.228

M3 - Editorial

AN - SCOPUS:85054828499

VL - 10

SP - 228

EP - 230

JO - World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology

JF - World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology

SN - 1948-5204

IS - 9

ER -