Endosonographic radial tumor thickness after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy to predict response and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: a prospective multicenter phase ll study by the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK 75/02)

EUS response assessment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is limited by disintegration of the involved anatomic structures.

Multiplex assays for biomarker research and clinical application: translational science coming of age

Over the last decade, translational science has come into the focus of academic medicine, and significant intellectual and financial efforts have been made to initiate a multitude of bench-to-bedside projects. The quest for suitable biomarkers that will significantly change clinical practice has become one of the biggest challenges in translational medicine. Quantitative measurement of proteins is a critical step in biomarker discovery. Assessing a large number of potential protein biomarkers in a statistically significant number of samples and controls still constitutes a major technical hurdle. Multiplexed analysis offers significant advantages regarding time, reagent cost, sample requirements and the amount of data that can be generated. The two contemporary approaches in multiplexed and quantitative biomarker validation, antibody-based immunoassays and MS-based multiple (or selected) reaction monitoring, are based on different assay principles and instrument requirements. Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages and therefore have complementary roles in the multi-staged biomarker verification and validation process. In this review, we discuss quantitative immunoassay and multiple reaction monitoring/selected reaction monitoring assay principles and development. We also discuss choosing an appropriate platform, judging the performance of assays, obtaining reliable, quantitative results for translational research and clinical applications in the biomarker field.

Reporting of research quality characteristics of studies published in 6 major clinical dental specialty journals

The objective of this article was to record reporting characteristics related to study quality of research published in major specialty dental journals with the highest impact factor (Journal of Endodontics, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics; Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and International Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry). The included articles were classified into the following 3 broad subject categories: (1) cross-sectional (snap-shot), (2) observational, and (3) interventional. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted for effect estimation using the journal as the response and randomization, sample calculation, confounding discussed, multivariate analysis, effect measurement, and confidence intervals as the explanatory variables. The results showed that cross-sectional studies were the dominant design (55%), whereas observational investigations accounted for 13%, and interventions/clinical trials for 32%. Reporting on quality characteristics was low for all variables: random allocation (15%), sample size calculation (7%), confounding issues/possible confounders (38%), effect measurements (16%), and multivariate analysis (21%). Eighty-four percent of the published articles reported a statistically significant main finding and only 13% presented confidence intervals. The Journal of Clinical Periodontology showed the highest probability of including quality characteristics in reporting results among all dental journals.

Randomization in clinical trials in orthodontics: its significance in research design and methods to achieve it

Randomization is a key step in reducing selection bias during the treatment allocation phase in randomized clinical trials. The process of randomization follows specific steps, which include generation of the randomization list, allocation concealment, and implementation of randomization. The phenomenon in the dental and orthodontic literature of characterizing treatment allocation as random is frequent; however, often the randomization procedures followed are not appropriate. Randomization methods assign, at random, treatment to the trial arms without foreknowledge of allocation by either the participants or the investigators thus reducing selection bias. Randomization entails generation of random allocation, allocation concealment, and the actual methodology of implementing treatment allocation randomly and unpredictably. Most popular randomization methods include some form of restricted and/or stratified randomization. This article introduces the reasons, which make randomization an integral part of solid clinical trial methodology, and presents the main randomization schemes applicable to clinical trials in orthodontics.

Outcome, quality of life and cognitive function of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer treated with whole brain radiotherapy combined with gefitinib or temozolomide. A randomised phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK 70/03)

Patients with brain metastases (BM) rarely survive longer than 6months and are commonly excluded from clinical trials. We explored two combined modality regimens with novel agents with single agent activity and radiosensitizing properties.

Addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia at older age: a randomized phase 2 trial of the Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hemato-Oncology (HOVON) and the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK)

An urgent need for new treatment modalities is emerging in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We hypothesized that targeting VEGF might furnish an effective treatment modality in this population. Elderly patients with AML were randomly assigned in this phase 2 study (n = 171) to receive standard chemotherapy (3 + 7) with or without bevacizumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg intravenously at days 1 and 15. In the second cycle, patients received cytarabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-6 with or without bevacizumab. The complete remission rates in the 2 arms were not different (65%). Event-free survival at 12 months was 33% for the standard arm versus 30% for the bevacizumab arm; at 24 months, it was 22% and 16%, respectively (P = .42). The frequencies of severe adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the bevacizumab arm (n = 63) compared with the control arm (n = 28; P = .043), but the percentages of death or life-threatening SAEs were lower in the bevacizumab arm (60% vs 75% of SAEs). The results of the present study show that the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy does not improve the therapeutic outcome of older AML patients. This trial is registered as number NTR904 in The Nederlands Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl).

Quality of analgesic treatment in patients with advanced prostate cancer: do we do a better job now? The Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) experience

GOALS OF WORK: The aim of this study was to evaluate pain intensity and the application of the WHO guidelines for cancer pain treatment in patients with prostate cancer treated at Swiss cancer centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a series of five multicenter phase II clinical trials which examined the palliative effect of different chemotherapies in patients with advanced hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma. Of 170 patients, 1,018 visits were evaluable for our purpose, including ratings of pain intensity by patients and prescribed analgesics. MAIN RESULTS: No or mild pain was indicated by patients in 36 to 55% of the visits, more than mild pain in 30 to 46%. In 21% of the visits, the WHO pain treatment criteria (treatment according to one of the three steps; oral, rectal or transdermal application of the main dose; administration on a regular schedule) were fulfilled, and the Cleeland index was positive according to all recommendations. In 6% of the visits, neither the WHO criteria were fulfilled nor was the Cleeland index positive. This indicates insufficient pain treatment not following the WHO guidelines and that the prescribed analgesics were not sufficiently potent for the rated pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: In this selective Swiss sample, the standard of analgesic treatment is high. However, there is still scope for improvement. This cannot solely be solved by improving the knowledge of the physicians. Programs to change the patients' attitude towards cancer pain, training to improve the physicians' communication skills, and institutional changes may be promising strategies.

Docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil; docetaxel and cisplatin; and epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil as systemic treatment for advanced gastric carcinoma: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

This randomized phase II trial evaluated two docetaxel-based regimens to see which would be most promising according to overall response rate (ORR) for comparison in a phase III trial with epirubicin-cisplatin-fluorouracil (ECF) as first-line advanced gastric cancer therapy.

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Adding cetuximab to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK

BACKGROUND: To determine the activity and tolerability of adding cetuximab to the oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter two-arm phase II trial, patients were randomized to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks alone or in combination with standard dose cetuximab. Treatment was limited to a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients with good performance status entered the trial. Objective partial response rates after external review and radiological confirmation were 14% and 41% in the XELOX and in the XELOX + Cetuximab arm, respectively. Stable disease has been observed in 62% and 35% of the patients, with 76% disease control in both arms. Cetuximab led to skin rash in 65% of the patients. The median overall survival was 16.5 months for arm A and 20.5 months for arm B. The median time to progression was 5.8 months for arm A and 7.2 months for arm B. CONCLUSION: Differences in response rates between the treatment arms indicate that cetuximab may improve outcome with XELOX. The correct place of the cetuximab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combinations in first-line treatment of MCC has to be assessed in phase III trials.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GemCap) on patient-reported outcomes measured using clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality-of-life (QOL) measures in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had to manifest symptoms of advanced biliary tract cancer and have at least one of the following: impaired Karnofsky performance score (60 to 80), average analgesic consumption >or= 10 mg of morphine equivalents per day, and average pain intensity score of >or= 20 mm out of 100 mm. Treatment consisted of oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks until progression. The primary end point was the number of patients categorized as having a CBR or stable CBR (SCBR) during the first three treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled (bile duct cancer, n = 36; gallbladder cancers, n = 8). The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hematologic toxicity and fatigue. After three cycles, 36% of patients achieved a CBR, and 34% achieved an SCBR. Over the full course of treatment, 57% of patients achieved a CBR, and 18% achieved an SCBR. Improved QOL was observed in patients with a CBR or SCBR. The objective response rate was 25%. Median time to progression and overall survival times were 7.2 months and 13.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy with GemCap is well tolerated and effective and leads to a high CBR rate. Patient-reported outcomes are useful for evaluating the effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

[Swiss Research Agenda for Nursing (SRAN): the development of an agenda for clinical nursing research in Switzerland]

In many Anglo-Saxon and North European countries nursing research agendas have been developed to address priorities in nursing research in accordance with a nationally defined health policy. In Switzerland, due to lack of a nationwide governmental health policy, co-ordination of nursing research so far was scarce. The "Swiss Research Agenda for Nursing (SRAN)" project developed an agenda for clinical nursing research between 2005 and 2007. Based on literature reviews, expert panels and a national survey a project team formulated an agenda which passed a consensus conference. The agenda recommends aspects that should lead research and defines seven research priorities for nursing in Switzerland for the time between 2007 and 2017. Nursing research should prioritize to investigate 1) the effectiveness of nursing interventions; 2) the influences of service adaptations in a changing health care system; 3) the phenomena in patients requiring nursing care; 4) the influence of the work environment on the quality of nursing care; 5) the functioning of family and social systems; 6) varieties of life circumstances and their integration; and 7) the implementation of ethical principles in nursing. Written in German and French, the Swiss Research Agenda for Nursing for the first time formulates priorities for nursing research in Switzerland and can be used for strategic discussions. As a next step, the development of an action plan to enhance nursing research will take place in Switzerland.