首页> 外文期刊>Anti-cancer drugs >Radiologist review versus group peer review of claimed responses in a phase II study on high-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas of the adult: a study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group.
【24h】

Radiologist review versus group peer review of claimed responses in a phase II study on high-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas of the adult: a study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group.

机译:在成人晚期软组织肉瘤的高剂量异环磷酰胺的II期研究中,放射科医生的审查与小组同行的审查所声称的反应:EORTC软组织和骨肉瘤小组的研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) of the EORTC ran a phase II study to assess the therapeutic activity of high-dose ifosfamide in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas by means of response rate (RR). Investigators claiming a response submitted the relevant chest radiographs (CXR) or scans to two other members of the STBSG for peer review. The reviewers completed a questionnaire indicating overall response or reasons for rejecting the claimed responses. An independent radiologist also reviewed the cases and he was blinded to the results of the peer review until the study was concluded. Twenty-two patients were reviewed by the radiologist and peer review, and the completed questionnaires were retrospectively reviewed. Two differences were noted, one partial responder (PR) was regarded as stable disease by the radiologist and one PR by peer review was determined a complete response by the radiologist. The radiologist found subsequent evidence of progressive disease in three patients who initially showed a PR, whilst the review group noted only one. This study suggests peer review in this tumor type is a satisfactory method of achieving an accurate, objective RR.
机译:EORTC的软组织和骨肉瘤组(STBSG)进行了II期研究,以通过反应率(RR)评估高剂量异环磷酰胺对晚期软组织肉瘤患者的治疗活性。声称回复的调查人员提交了相关的胸部X光片(CXR)或扫描照片,然后交给STBSG的其他两名成员进行同行评审。审阅者填写了一份问卷,指出总体答复或拒绝所主张答复的原因。一位独立的放射科医生也对病例进行了审查,他对同行评审的结果不了解,直到研究结束。放射科医生和同行评审对22例患者进行了回顾,并对完成的问卷进行了回顾性回顾。注意到两个差异,放射科医生认为一名局部反应者(PR)是稳定的疾病,而放射科医生认为同行评审中的一名PR是完全反应。放射科医生在最初显示PR的三名患者中发现了进行性疾病的后续证据,而回顾组仅注意到一名。这项研究表明,这种肿瘤类型的同行评审是实现准确,客观的RR的令人满意的方法。

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