Skip Navigation


Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access originally published online on September 25, 2007
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007 99(19):1430-1432; doi:10.1093/jnci/djm181
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/19/1430    most recent
djm181v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tuma, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tuma, R. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2007.

NEWS

Unusual Comparison Between Trials Uncovers Key Genetic Polymorphisms

Rabiya S. Tuma

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

A standard rule of thumb in clinical trial design and analysis is that researchers should not compare results from two different trials, which can lead to spurious conclusions. Yet researchers in the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) have designed trials to do just that.

Using an unorthodox method, they have uncovered genetic differences that may partially explain why Japanese lung cancer patients have better outcomes in clinical trials than those of American patients. The team is now using similar trial designs to look for genetic differences that might account for the increased responsiveness of Japanese patients to drugs that block epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activity.

Instead of enrolling Japanese and American patients in one trial, an impractical approach given the regulatory hurdles, the researchers designed three different but simultaneously run trials, each with an identical control arm, referred to as a "common arm." They then compared patient outcomes among the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

An International Conundrum

Examining a New Design


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?