Ottaiano Alessandro
SSD-Innovative Therapies for Abdominal Metastases, Clinical and Experimental Abdominal Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori di Napoli, Naples 80131, Italy.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018 Sep 15;10(9):228-230. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i9.228.
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 IIIstudies 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.
在大多数III期临床试验中,患者通常会因特定的合并症、东部肿瘤协作组体能状态≥2、年龄≥65岁、既往恶性肿瘤、脑转移、活动性感染、精神障碍、不可测量的疾病、既往化疗或生物治疗的疗程数量及类型而被排除。由此引发了一个问题:III期研究的结果能否推广至普通人群?人们越来越关注并重新提及一些如“真实世界”或“实际临床”等术语,这些术语被错误地认为与临床试验方案相悖。事实上,普遍的观念是,“错误的”(回顾性且有偏差的)与“正确的”(前瞻性、随机、统计学设计良好的)临床研究之间存在对立关系。我们必须改变这种观念。实际临床研究本质上通常是回顾性的,值得重新评估;偏差在生理学上是存在的,但对其准确而严谨的描述和分析有助于对结果的解读,在某些情况下还能强化结果及其产生假设的能力。临床试验与实际临床报告之间正确且平衡的相互作用有助于科学界增进对抗癌药物疗效的认识。