Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biometrie

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Strahlentherapie

  • 8869 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Klinische Studien sind strukturierte Erfahrung. In ihnen geht es darum, unter transparenten, vorher festgelegten, überprüfbaren Bedingungen Informationen über die Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit von Therapien zu gewinnen (DeMets 2012).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Abel U (1995) Die zytostatische Chemotherapie fortgeschrittener Karzinome, 2. vollst. überarbeitete Aufl. Hippokrates, Stuttgart, S 56ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Abel U, Windeler J (1995) Erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte klinischer Studien. 1. Irrtümer in der Bewertung medizinischer Therapien – Ursachen und Konsequenzen. Internist Prax 35:613–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Abel U, Koch A (1999) The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 52:487–497

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adam J, Förster W (1996) Meta-Analysen – wirklich der Weisheit letzter Schluß? Münch Med Wschr 138:37–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff W, Miller F (2009) A seamless Phase II/III design with sample-size re-estimation. J Biopharm Stat 19:595–609

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Black N (1996) Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 312:1215–1218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borzak S, Ridker PM (1995) Discordance between metaanalyses and large-scale randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 123:873–877

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz F, Schmidli H, Koenig F, Racine A, Maurer W (2006) Confirmatory seamless Phase II/III clinical trials with hypotheses selection at interim: general concepts (with Discussion). Biometrical Journal 48: 623–634

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz F, Koenig F, Brannath W, Glimm E, Posch M (2009) Adapative designs for confirmatory clinical trials. Stat Med 28:1181–1217

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brufman G, Colajori E, Ghilezan N, Lassus M, Martoni A, Perevodchikova N, Tosello C, Viaro D, Zielinski C, and the Epirubicin High-Dose (HEPI010) Study Group (1997) Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m2 versus 50 mg/m2) in the FEC regimen significantly increases response rates. An international randomised phase III study in metastatic breast cancer. Annals of Oncology 8: 155–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buyse M, Pedbois P (1996) On the relationship between response to treatment and survival time. Stat Med 15:2797–2812

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chan A-W, Hrosbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotsche PC, Altman DC (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in Randomized Trials. Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, Hróbjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Doré CJ, Parulekar WR, Summerskill WS, Groves T, Schulz KF, Sox HC, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D (2013) SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Ann Intern Med 158:200–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K, Hróbjartsson A, Schluz KF, Parulekar WR, Krleza-Jeric K, Laupacis A, Moher D (2013) SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 346:e7586

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chevret S (2012) Bayesian adaptive clinical trials: a dream for statisticians only? Statist Med 31:1002–1013

    Google Scholar 

  • CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2002) Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/090899en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2005) Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/13939104en.pdf.: Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2006) Guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/020595en.pdf. Zugegriffen:).9. Mai 2013

  • CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2007a) Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human clinical trials with investigational medicinal products. London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/2836707enfin.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9.Mai 2013

  • CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2007b) Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/245902enadopted.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • CHMP (Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) (2008) Appendix 1 to the Guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. EMA, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/2799408en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, Chen LL, Podoloff DA, Benjamin RS (2007) Correlation of Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Treated at a Single Institution With Imatinib Mesylate: Proposal of New Computed Tomography Response Criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753–1759

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chow SC, Liu J-P. (2004) Design and analysis of clinical trials. 2nd ed. Wiley, New York, S 44ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow SC, Chang M (2007) Adaptive design methods in clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Concato J (2004) Observational versus experimental studies. What’s the evidence for a hierarchy? NeuroRx 1:341–437

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CONSORT Statement (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), Consort Group, http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement.Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • Cook DI, Gebski VJ, Keech AC (2004) Subgroup analysis in clinical trials. MJA 180:289–291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook TD, De Mets DL (2008) Introduction to statistical methods for clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley J, Ankerst DP. (Hrsg) (2006) Handbook of statistics in oncology. 2nd edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, S 119ff

    Google Scholar 

  • CTEP: Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (NCI); NIH, Bethesda, MD http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/templates_applications.htm. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364:911–912

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeMets DL (2012) Current development in clinical trials: issues old and new. Statist Med 31:2944–2954

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMets DL, Pocock SJ, Julian DG (1999) The agonizing negative trend in monitoring of clinical trials. Lancet 354:1983–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz J, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterborrk PJ, von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ionnidis JPA, Simes J, Williamson PR (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication and outcome reporting bias. PLoSONE 3(8):e3081.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook PhJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337:867–872

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Coordinating Center, Boston MA, http://www.ecog.org. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, Rubinstein L, Shankar L, Dodd L, Kaplan R, Lacombe D, Verweij J (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Europ J Cancer 45:228–247

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edeline J, Boucher E, Rolland Y, Vauléon E, Pracht M, Perrin C, Le Roux C, Raoul JL (2012) Comparison of tumor response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 118:147–156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edler L (1993) Phase-II-Studien in der Onkologie: Wie viele Patienten sind erforderlich? Tumordiagn Ther 14:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • European Medicines Agency (1998) ICH Topic E8: Note for Guidance on general considerations for clinical trials. CPMP/ICH/291/95. London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/029195en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • European Medicines Agency (2013) Clinical efficacy and safety guidelines. http://www.ema.europa.eu/htms/human/humanguidelines/efficacy.htm. Zugegriffen: 9. Juni 2013

  • Eyawo O, Lee C-W, Rachlis B, Mills EJ (2008) Reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence randomized trials for major prostaglandins: A systematic survey of the ophthalmology literature. Trials 9:69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough DL (2010) Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. Second ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayers PM, Machin D (2007) Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli D (2009) How many scientist fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoSONE 4(5):e5738.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang YJ, Su Z (2012) Hybridization of conditional and predictive power for futility assessment in sequential clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: a resampling approach. Contemp Clin Trials 33:138–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FDA (2007) Guidance for industry. Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. US. Dept Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071590.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • FDA (2009) Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Draft Guidance.US. Dept Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • Fleming TR (2005) Surrogate Endpoints and FDA’s accelerated approval process. Health Affairs 24:67–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fossâ SD, Skovlund E (2000) Interim analyses in clinical trials: why do we plan them? J Clin Oncol 18:4007–4008

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friede T, Kieser M (2001) A comparison of methods for adaptive sample size adjustment. Stat Med 20:3861–3873

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Friede T, Kieser M (2006) Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biom J. 48:537–555

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL (2010) Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 4th ed. Springer New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan HK, You B, Pond GR, Chen EX (2012) Assumptions of Expected Benefits in Randomized Phase III Trials Evaluating Systemic Treatments for Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:590–598

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P (2007) When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ 334:349–351

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Granone P, Trodella L, Margaritora S et al. (2000) Radiotherapy versus follow-up in the treatment of pathological stage Ia and Ib non-small cell lung cancer. Early stopped analysis of a randomized controlled study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 18:418–424

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Green S, Benedetti J, Crowley J (1997) Clinical trials in oncology. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Guidance for Industry Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Drugs and Biologics. Draft Guidance 2011. Available online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryIn formation/Guidances/UCM259421.pdf. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • Gupta SK (2011) Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspect Clin Res 2:109–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta SK (2011) Non-inferiority clinical trials: Practical issues and current regulatory perspective. Indian J Pharmacol 43:371–374

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartz A, Bentler S, Charlton M, Lanska D, Butani, Y, Soomro GM, Benson K (2005): Assessing observational studies of medical treatments. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2:8. Available from: http://www.ete-online.com/content/2/1/8

  • Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Cox C, Eberly SW, Kris MG (1997) A dilemma in analysis: issues in the serial measurement of quality of life in patients with advanced lung cancer. Lung Cancer 18:119–136

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hollinshead A (1991) Active specific immunotherapy and immunechemotherapy in the treatment of lung and colon cancer. Semin Oncol 7:199–210

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hollinshead AC, Stewart THM, Takita H, Dalbow M, Concannon J (1987) Adjuvant specific active lung cancer immunotherapy trials. Cancer 60:1249–1262

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iasonos A, Wilton AS, Riedel ER, Seshan VE, Spriggs DR (2008) A comprehensive comparison of the continual reassessment method to the standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme in Phase I dose-finding studies. Clin Trials 5:465–477

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2000) Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2006) Confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trials with hypothesis selection at interim: opportunities and limitations. Biom J 48: 650–655

    Google Scholar 

  • Julious SA (2010) Sample sizes for clinical trials. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Kairalla JA, Coffey CS, Thomann MA, Muller KE (2012) Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities. Trials 13:145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuser E-D, Fiebig HH, Scheulen ME et al. (1998) Standard operating procedures and organization. Onkologie 21 (Suppl 3):1–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz R, Khan KS, Kleinjen J, Antes G (2009) Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten und Meta-Analysen. Huber, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai TL, Lavori PW, Shih M-L (2012) Adaptive Trial Designs. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 52:101–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lai TL, Lavori PW, Shih M-C (2012) Sequential design of Phase II–III cancer trials. Statist Med 31:1944–1960

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I (2006) The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 333:597–600

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis JA, Facey KM (1998) Statistical shortcomings in licensing applications. Stat Med 17:1663–1673

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, Neaton JD, Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Shih WJ, Siegel JP, Stern H (2012) The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. New Engl J Med 367:1355–1360

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH (2009) Sample size tables for clinical studies. 3rd ed. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. JClin Epidemiol 62: 1006–1012

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyé LA (2003) Multiple analyses in clinical trials: fundamentals for investigators. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro AJ (1998) What now for postoperative radiotherapy for lung cancer? Commentary. Lancet 352:250–251

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor CD (1997) Meta-analysis and the meta-analysis of clinical research. BMJ 315:617–619

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Osoba D (2011) Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. Ther Adv Med Oncol 3:57–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piantadosi S (2005) Clinical trials: a methodological perspective. 2nd edition. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilz LR, Manegold C, Schmid-Bindert G (2012) Statistical considerations and endpoints for clinical lung cancer studies: can progression free survival (PFS) substitute overall survival (OS) as a valid endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer? Transl Lung Cancer Res 1:26–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocock SJ (1983) Clinical trials – a practical approach. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group (1998) Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomised controlled trials. Lancet 352:257–263

    Google Scholar 

  • PORT Meta-analysis Trialists Group (2010) Postoperative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (review) (2010) Cochrane Database Syst Rev; (2): CD002142. DOI: 10.1002/1465–1858.CD002142.pub2.

    Google Scholar 

  • RANDI2 Randomization system, DKFZ Heidelberg, http://www.randi2.org. Zugegriffen: 9. Mai 2013

  • Randomizer (2013) Randomizer for clinical trials 1.8.3, Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich, http://www.randi2.org/ https://www.randomizer.at/demo/web/about.php. Zugegriffen: 21. Juni 2013

  • Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL et al. (2000) Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. Control Clin Trials 21:415–427

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) Berlin, Germany. http://www.recist.com/

  • Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM (2002) Randomization in clinical trials: theory and practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Statistical Society (2007) Report of the Working Party on Statistical Issues in First-in-Man studies. www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=1713σ

  • Rubinstein L, Crowley J, Ivy P, LeBlanc M, Sargent D (2009) Randomized Phase II Designs. Clin Cancer Res 15:1883–1890

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett DL (1979) Bias in analytical research. J Chronic Disease 32:51–63

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett DL (1998) Was ist Evidenz-basierte Medizin? Editorial. In: Perleth M, Antes G (Hrsg) Evidenzbasierte Medizin. Wissenschaft im Praxisalltag. MMV Medizin Verlag, München, S 9–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Salek S (1998) Compendium of quality of life instruments. Wiley, Chichester New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrimpf D, Manegold C, Pilz LR (2013) Design of clinical studies: Adaptive randomization and progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint in clinical studies of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Clin Pharmaceutical Therapeutics 52:84–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrimpf D, Pilz LR (2012) Adaptive randomization procedures for the web-based randomization system RANDI2. Int J Clin Pharmaceutical Therapeutics 52:85–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrimpf D, Plotnicki L, Pilz LR (2011) Choice and simulation of the randomization procedure for clinical trials. Int J Clin Pharmaceutical Therapeutics 49:91–92

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. JAMA 273:408–412

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group (2010) Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152:726–732

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher M, Schulgen G (2008) Methodik klinischer Studien. 3. Aufl. Springer - New York - Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzer G, Galandi D, Antes G, Schumacher M (2000) Meta-Analyse randomisierter klinischer Studien, Publikations-Bias und Evidence-based Medicine. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 31:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour L, Ivy SP, Sargent D, Spriggs D, Baker L, Rubenstein L, Ratein MJ, LeBlanc M, Stewart D, Crowley J, Groshan S, Humphrey JS, West P, Berry D (2010) The design of Phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: Consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin Cancer Res 16:1764–1769

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soares HP, Kumar A, Daniels S, Cantor A, Hozo I, Clark M, Serdarevic F, Gwede C, Trotti A, Djulbegovic B (2005) Evaluation of new treatment sin radiation oncology. JAMA 293:970–978

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stallard N (2012) Optimal sample sizes for phase II clinical trials and pilot studies. Stat Med 31:1031–1042

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester R, Bartelink H, Rubens R (1994) A reversal of fortune: practical problems in the monitoring and interpretation of an EORTC breast cancer trial. Stat Med 13:1329–1335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tang J-L, Liu JLY (2000) Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiology 53:477–484

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tang PA, Bentzen, SM, Chen EX, Siu LL (2007) Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 29: 4562–4568

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotta F, Apolone G, Garattini S, Tafuri G (2008) Stopping a trial early in oncology for patients or for industry? Ann Oncol 19:1347–1353

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Unnebrink K, Windeler J (1999) Sensitivity analysis by worst and best case assessment: is it really sensitive? Drug Inf J 33:835–839

    Google Scholar 

  • Vastag B (2006) Cancer fraud case stuns research community, prompts reflection on peer review process. JNCI 98:374–376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF (2013) Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol (published in advance access) doi:10.1093/annonc/mds636

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R (1998) Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 19:159–166

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallack MK, Sivanandham M, Balch CM et al. (1995) A phase III randomized, double-blind, multi-institutional trial of vaccinia melanoma oncolysate-active specific immunotherapy for patients with stage II melanoma. Cancer 75:34–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wallack MK, Sivanandham M, Whooley B, Ditaranto K, Bartolucci AA (1996) Favorable clinical responses in subsets of patients from a randomized, multi-institutional melanoma vaccine trial. Ann Surg Oncol 3:110–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Dignam JJ, Zhang QE, DeGroot JF, Mehta MP, Hunsberger S (2012) Integrated phase II/III clinical trials in oncology: A case study. Clin Trials 9:741–747

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM (2007) Statistics in medicine - reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. New Engl J Med 357:2189–2194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss RB, Rifkin RM, Stewart FM, Theriault RL, Williams LA, Herman AA, Beveridge RA (2000) High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: an onsite review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 355:999–1003

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss RB, Gill GG, Hudis CA (2001) An on-site audit of the South African trial of high-dose chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and associated publications. J Clin Oncol 19:2771–2777

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead A (2002) Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Windeler J (1993) Das Intention-to-treat-Prinzip in klinischen Arzneimittelprüfungen. Arzneimitteltherapie 11:103–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittes J, Brittain E (1990) The role of internal pilot studies in increasing the efficiency of clinical trials. Stat Med 9:65–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar S, Lian Q, Levy V, Cheung K, Ivanova A, Chevret S (2008) Quality assessment of Phase I dose-finding cancer trials: proposal of a checklist. Clin Trials 5:478–485

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim/Dekanat, Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland

    L.R. Pilz

  2. Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Informatik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 305, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    U. Abel

  3. Abteilung Translationale Immunologie und NCT Studienzentrale, Nationales Zentrum für Tumorerkrankungen (NCT), Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    M. Pritsch

Authors
  1. L.R. Pilz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. U. Abel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Pritsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Michael Wannenmacher

  2. Universitätsklinikum Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Frederik Wenz

  3. Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Jürgen Debus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pilz, L., Abel, U., Pritsch, M. (2013). Biometrie. In: Wannenmacher, M., Wenz, F., Debus, J. (eds) Strahlentherapie. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88305-0_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88305-0_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-88304-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-88305-0

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation