...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research >Assessment of audit methodologies for bias evaluation of tumor progression in oncology clinical trials
【24h】

Assessment of audit methodologies for bias evaluation of tumor progression in oncology clinical trials

机译:肿瘤学临床试验中偏倚评估肿瘤进展的审计方法学评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

As progression-free survival (PFS) has become increasingly used as the primary endpoint in oncology phase III trials, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has generally required a complete-case blinded independent central review (BICR) of PFS to assess and reduce potential bias in the investigator or local site evaluation. However, recent publications and FDA analyses have shown a high correlation between local site evaluation and BICR assessments of the PFS treatment effect, which questions whether complete-case BICR is necessary. One potential alternative is to use BICR as an audit tool to detect evaluation bias in the local site evaluation. In this article, the performance characteristics of two audit methods proposed in the literature are evaluated on 26 prospective, randomized phase III registration trials in nonhematologic malignancies. The results support that a BICR audit to assess potential bias in the local site evaluation is a feasible approach. However, implementation and logistical challenges need further consideration and discussion.
机译:随着无进展生存期(PFS)被越来越多地用作肿瘤学III期试验的主要终点,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)通常要求对PFS进行完整病例盲法独立中央评估(BICR)评估和评估。减少调查人员或当地评估中的潜在偏见。但是,最近的出版物和FDA分析显示,本地站点评估与BICR对PFS治疗效果的评估之间存在高度相关性,这质疑是否需要完整病例的BICR。一种可能的选择是使用BICR作为审核工具,以检测本地站点评估中的评估偏差。在本文中,在26项非血液系统恶性肿瘤前瞻性,随机III期注册试验中评估了文献中提出的两种审核方法的性能特征。结果支持BICR审核以评估本地站点评估中的潜在偏见是一种可行的方法。但是,实施和后勤方面的挑战需要进一步考虑和讨论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号