Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.5237 on January 12 2009

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 27, No 5 (February 10), 2009: pp. 829
© 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
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 colleague
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 Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garfield, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garfield, D.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Articles
Right arrowRelated Reply
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

CORRESPONDENCE

Other Problems With Phase III Best Supportive Care Studies

David Garfield

University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, Aurora, CO

To the Editor:

In addition to the problems with such studies as discussed by Zafar et al,1 another surprisingly unaddressed issue is the frequency of patient visits by health care professionals. In the panitumumab versus best supportive care (BSC) studies,2,3 patients who received the drug were presumably seen by health care professionals every 2 weeks at the time of drug delivery, whereas those receiving only BSC were assessed, perhaps only, radiographically every 4 or even 8 weeks. In the cetuximab study,4 the differences in frequency of visits were even greater, with the treated group seen weekly and the BSC group seen every 4 weeks.

This may result in the treated group having a shorter progression-free survival because of earlier recognition of disease progression. On the other hand, complications and problems can be noted and addressed earlier in the treated group, possibly prolonging time on treatment, progression-free survival, and altering overall survival. In the future, such studies should consider having patients seen with the same frequency in both the treatment and BSC arms.

Given that the overall survival differences were either not significant3 or perhaps not clinically meaningful,4 especially given the cost of the treatment, collecting the data in such a manner may have led to results different from those obtained.

AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Zafar SY, Currow D, Abernathy AP: Defining best supportive care. J Clin Oncol 26:5139–5140, 2008.[Free Full Text]

2. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al: Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:1626–1634, 2008.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, et al: Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:1658–1664, 2007.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Jonker DJ, O'Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, et al: Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357:2040–2048, 2007.[Abstract/Free Full Text]


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 Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?

Related Articles

  • Other Problems With Phase III Best Supportive Care Studies
    David Garfield
    JCO 2009 27: 829 [Full Text]
  • Weight Loss After Breast Cancer Diagnosis May Not Improve Prognosis
    Harry W. Daniell
    JCO 2009 27: 829-830 [Full Text]
  • In Reply
    S. Yousuf Zafar, Amy P. Abernethy, and David Currow
    JCO 2009 27: 829 [Full Text]
  • Defining Best Supportive Care
    S. Yousuf Zafar, David Currow, and Amy P. Abernethy
    JCO 2008 26: 5139-5140 [Full Text]

Related Reply

  • In Reply
    S. Yousuf Zafar, Amy P. Abernethy, and David Currow
    JCO 2009 27: 829 [Full Text]



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
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 colleague
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 Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garfield, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garfield, D.
Related Articles
Right arrowRelated Articles
Right arrowRelated Reply
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online