Linkage of clinical trial and administrative data: a survey of cancer patient preferences.

BACKGROUND: Personal health information, including diagnoses and hospital admissions, is routinely collected in administrative databases. Patients enrolling on clinical trials consent to separate collection and storage of their personal health information. We evaluated patient preferences for linking long-term data from administrative databases with clinical trials. METHODS: Adults with cancer attending outpatient clinics at 3 Ontario hospitals were surveyed about their willingness, when faced with the hypothetical scenario of participating in a clinical trial, to provide potentially identifying information such as initials and date of birth to facilitate long-term research access to normally deidentified publicly collected databases. RESULTS: Of 569 patients surveyed, 335 (59%) were women, 452 (79%) were white, 385 (68%) had a post-secondary education, and 386 (68%) had never participated in a clinical trial. Median age in the group was 59 years. Most participants (93%, cohort 1) would allow long-term access to their information and allow personal information to be used to match clinical trial with administrative data. At the time of clinical trial closure, two thirds of participants (68%, cohort 2) preferred to make additional clinical information available through linkage with administrative databases, and 8 (9%) preferred to have no further information made available to researchers. No significant differences were found in the subset of patients who were part of a clinical trial and those who had never participated (p = 0.65). INTERPRETATION: Almost all patients would allow a clinical trial research team to access their confidential information, providing a more comprehensive assessment of an intervention's long-term risks and benefits.

Estimation of drug cost avoidance and pathology cost avoidance through participation in NCIC Clinical Trials Group phase III clinical trials in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cost avoidance occurs when, because of provision of a drug therapy [drug cost avoidance (dca)] or a pathology test [pathology cost avoidance (pca)] during trial participation, health care payers need not pay for standard treatments or testing. The aim of our study was to estimate the total dca and pca for Canadian patients enrolled in relevant phase iii trials conducted by the ncic Clinical Trials Group. METHODS: Phase iii trials that had completed accrual and resulted in dca or pca were identified. The pca was calculated based on the number of patients screened and the test cost. The dca was estimated based on patients randomized, the protocol dosing regimen, drug cost, median dose intensity, and median duration of therapy. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars. No adjustment was made for inflation. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2011, 4 trials (1479 patients) resulted in pca and 17 trials (3195 patients) resulted in dca. The total pca was estimated at $4,194,849, which included testing for KRAS ($141,058), microsatellite instability ($18,600), and 21-gene recurrence score ($4,035,191). The total dca was estimated at $27,952,512, of which targeted therapy constituted 43% (five trials). The combined pca and dca was $32,147,361. CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, trials conducted by the ncic Clinical Trials Group resulted in total cost avoidance (pca and dca) of approximately $7,518 per patient. Although not all trials lead to cost avoidance, such savings should be taken account when the financial impact of conducting clinical research is being considered.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (NCIC CTG MAP.2) examining the effects of exemestane on mammographic breast density, bone density, markers of bone metabolism and serum lipid levels in postmenopausal women.

We hypothesized that exemestane (EXE) would reduce mammographic breast density and have unique effects on biomarkers of bone and lipid metabolism. Healthy postmenopausal women were randomized to EXE (25 mg daily) or placebo (PLAC) for 12 months and followed for a total of 24 months. The primary endpoint was change in percent breast density (PD) between the baseline and 12-month mammograms and secondary endpoints were changes in serum lipid levels, bone biomarkers, and bone mineral density (BMD). Ninety-eight women were randomized (49 to EXE; 49 to PLAC) and 65 had PD data at baseline and 12 months. Among women treated with EXE, PD was not significantly changed from baseline at 6, 12, or 24 months and was not different from PLAC. EXE was associated with significant percentage increase from baseline in N-telopeptide at 12 months compared with PLAC. No differences in percent change from baseline in BMD (lumbar spine and femoral neck) were observed between EXE and PLAC at either 12 or 24 months. Patients on EXE had a significantly larger percent decrease in total cholesterol than in the PLAC arm at 6 months and in HDL cholesterol at 3, 6, and 12 months. No significant differences in percent change in LDL or triglycerides were noted at any time point between the two treatment arms. EXE administered for 1 year to healthy postmenopausal women did not result in significant changes in mammographic density. A reversible increase in the bone resorption marker N-telopeptide without significant change in bone specific alkaline phosphatase or BMD during the 12 months treatment period and 1 year later was noted. Changes in lipid parameters on this trial were modest and reversible.

The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs.

Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.

Intent-to-treat analysis of the placebo-controlled trial of letrozole for extended adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer: NCIC CTG MA.17.

BACKGROUND: MA.17 evaluated letrozole or placebo after 5 years of tamoxifen and showed significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) for letrozole [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57, P = 0.00008]. The trial was unblinded and placebo patients were offered letrozole. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An intent-to-treat analysis of all outcomes, before and after unblinding, on the basis of the original randomization was carried out. RESULTS: In all, 5187 patients were randomly allocated to the study at baseline and, at unblinding, 1579 (66%) of 2383 placebo patients accepted letrozole. At median follow-up of 64 months (range 16-95), 399 recurrences or contralateral breast cancers (CLBCs) (164 letrozole and 235 placebo) occurred. Four-year DFS was 94.3% (letrozole) and 91.4% (placebo) [HR 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.83, P = 0.0001] and showed superiority for letrozole in both node-positive and -negative patients. Corresponding 4-year distant DFS was 96.3% and 94.9% (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.03, P = 0.082). Four-year overall survival was 95.1% for both groups. The annual rate of CLBC was 0.28% for letrozole and 0.46% for placebo patients (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.97, P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Patients originally randomly assigned to receive letrozole within 3 months of stopping tamoxifen did better than placebo patients in DFS and CLBC, despite 66% of placebo patients taking letrozole after unblinding.

Assessing the reliability of two toxicity scales: implications for interpreting toxicity data.

BACKGROUND: The toxicity of a given cancer therapy is an important end point in clinical trials examining the potential costs and benefits of that therapy. Treatment-related toxicity is conventionally measured with one of several toxicity criteria grading scales, even though the reliability and validity of these scales have not been established. PURPOSE: We determined the reliability of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC-CTG) expanded toxicity scale and the World Health Organization (WHO) standard toxicity scale by use of a clinical simulation of actual patients. METHODS: Seven experienced data managers each interviewed 12 simulated patients and scored their respective acute toxic effects. Inter-rater agreement (agreement between multiple raters of the same case) was calculated using the kappa (kappa) statistic across all seven randomly assigned raters for each of 18 toxicity categories (13 NCIC-CTG and five WHO categories). Intra-rater agreement (agreement within the same rater on one case rated on separate occasions) was calculated using kappa over repeated cases (where raters were blinded to the repeated nature of the subjects). Proportions of agreement (estimate of the probability of two randomly selected raters assigning the same toxicity grade to a given case) were also calculated for inter-rater agreement. Since minor lack of agreement might have adversely affected these statistics of agreement, both kappa and proportion of agreement analyses were repeated for the following condensed grading categories: none (0) versus low-grade (1 or 2) versus high-grade (3 or 4) toxicity present. RESULTS: Modest levels of inter-rater reliability were demonstrated in this study with kappa values that ranged from 0.50 to 1.00 in laboratory-based categories and from -0.04 to 0.82 for clinically based categories. Proportions of agreement for clinical categories ranged from 0.52 to 0.98. Condensing the toxicity grades improved statistics of agreement, but substantial lack of agreement remained (kappa range, -0.04-0.82; proportions of agreement range, 0.67-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced data managers, when interviewing patients, draw varying conclusions regarding toxic effects experienced by such patients. Neither the NCIC-CTG expanded toxicity scale nor the WHO standard toxicity scale demonstrated a clear superiority in reliability, although the breadth of toxic effects recorded differed.

Trimetrexate: predictors of severe or life-threatening toxic effects.

In four phase II trials of trimetrexate given iv daily for 5 days, we noted marked variability among patients in the development of severe or life-threatening toxic effects. In an effort to define which of 15 patient characteristics were associated with toxic effects of this degree, we have carried out single-factor and multifactor analyses on toxic effects during the first cycle of therapy in 68 patients. The final logistic regression model identified both low pretreatment serum protein levels and metastatic liver disease as significant correlates of severe toxic effects (P = .02 and P = .0005, respectively). While drug dose was an important element of the best logistic model, its statistical significance was only borderline. Trimetrexate is extensively protein bound and is cleared primarily by hepatic metabolism, so it is not unreasonable to believe that alteration in protein binding of the drug or in metabolic capacity of the liver could produce enhanced toxic effects. Although the validity of these predictors should be confirmed, it seems prudent to recommend lower starting doses of trimetrexate for patients with metastatic liver disease and/or low protein levels and dose escalation if toxic effects allow it.

Reporting the results of randomized trials of empiric antibiotics in febrile neutropenic patients--a critical survey.

Twenty-one randomized trials of empiric antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients were reviewed and scored by methods suggested by Chalmers. In general, the scores were low, indicating that many of these articles failed to meet currently suggested methodologic standards for publication of results of clinical trials. Particularly striking was the lack of attention paid to statistical issues, such as power, exclusions, and repeated analyses. In addition, there appears to be a need for a better-developed system for assessing response in these circumstances.

Methodologic issues in trials of antiemetics.

Studies of antiemetics require consideration of methodologic issues that may not be of concern in trials of antineoplastics. This paper illustrates how the strength of the results of these studies can be affected by (1) the types of patients studied, (2) the sample size, (3) the trial design, (4) the choice and definition of outcome measures, and (5) the method of analysis.

Impact of cyclophosphamide on relationships between carboplatin exposure and response or toxicity when used in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine (1) the impact of cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 on previously defined relationships between carboplatin area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) and indices of toxicity and response in women with advanced ovarian cancer; and (2) the relationships between indices of cumulative drug exposure and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Carboplatin AUC = dose/(creatinine clearance [CCr] + 25) and was calculated in 224 women who received carboplatin 300 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2. The likelihood of grade 3 or greater myelotoxicity at any carboplatin AUC was compared with the likelihood of myelotoxicity at the same single-agent carboplatin AUC. The nadir count predicted using the University of Maryland single-agent carboplatin dosing formula was compared with the nadir count observed. Received and relative-received dose-intensity were calculated. Carboplatin exposure-intensity was defined by substituting cumulative carboplatin exposure for total dose. Relationships were sought between these indices and therapeutic outcomes. RESULTS: The incidence of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia at any carboplatin AUC was greater for the two-drug combination than for single-agent carboplatin. The platelet nadir in 83% of patients was less than or equal to the nadir predicted for the same single-agent carboplatin AUC. Despite a narrow range of received dose-intensities, carboplatin exposure-intensity was distributed over a twofold range. There were no relationships between received and relative-received dose-intensity or carboplatin exposure-intensity and time to progression or survival. CONCLUSION: Any carboplatin AUC when administered with cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 produces greater myelotoxicity than the same AUC of single-agent carboplatin. Received carboplatin dose-intensity underestimates the range of plasma drug exposure resulting from a fixed carboplatin dosing regimen. Whether higher carboplatin exposures can improve outcome requires prospective validation.

Importance of timing for thoracic irradiation in the combined modality treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: The importance of the timing of thoracic irradiation (TI) in the combined modality therapy of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) was assessed in a randomized trial. METHODS: All 308 eligible patients received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) alternating with etoposide and cisplatin (EP) every 3 weeks for three cycles of each chemotherapy regimen. Patients randomized to early TI received 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks to the primary site concurrent with the first cycle of EP (week 3), and late TI patients received the same radiation concurrent with the last cycle of EP (week 15). After completion of all chemotherapy and TI, patients without progressive disease received prophylactic cranial irradiation (25 Gy in 10 fractions over 2 weeks). RESULTS: Although complete remission rates were not significantly different between the two arms, progression-free survival (P = .036) and overall survival (P = .008) were superior in the early TI arm. Patients in the late TI arm had a higher risk of brain metastases (P = .006). CONCLUSION: The early administration of TI in the combined modality therapy of limited-stage SCLC is superior to late or consolidative TI.

Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer--report of a Canadian multicenter randomized trial.

The survival benefit of combination chemotherapy to patients with advanced non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC) is controversial. To study this question, the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) Clinical Trials Group conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing best supportive care (BSC) to two chemotherapy regimens, vindesine and cisplatin (VP), and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (CAP). Between February 1983 and January 1986, 23 centers across Canada entered 251 patients on study. Eighteen centers participated in the three-arm schema (150 patients); centers choosing not to participate in a study with a no-chemotherapy arm followed a two-arm schema comparing VP with CAP (101 additional patients). Altogether, 233 patients were eligible. Patients had measurable or evaluable disease, with either distant metastases (82.5%) or bulky limited disease considered inoperable or unsuitable for radical radiotherapy. The treatment groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, performance status, histology, disease extent, and weight loss. The overall response rates (complete response [CR] plus partial response [PR]) on the chemotherapy arms were CAP, 15.3%, and VP, 25.3% (P = .06). Patients on the three-arm portion of the trial had a median survival of 32.6 weeks when treated with VP, 24.7 weeks with CAP, and 17 weeks with BSC. The significance of the differences in survival, adjusted for prognostic factors, is as follows: chemotherapy v BSC, P = .02; VP v BSC, P = .01; and CAP v BSC, P = .05. Toxicity on the chemotherapy arms was significant, with leukopenia of severe or greater degree occurring in 37.8% (CAP) and 40.0% (VP), severe vomiting in 12.2% (CAP) and 23.3% (VP), and severe neurotoxicity in 15.6% (VP).

Canadian multicenter randomized trial comparing sequential and alternating administration of two non-cross-resistant chemotherapy combinations in patients with limited small-cell carcinoma of the lung.

In order to assess the effect of scheduling of chemotherapy on the outcome of patients with limited small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada carried out a randomized trial comparing the alternation of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH; doxorubicin) and vincristine (CAV) with etoposide (VP-16) and cisplatin for six cycles to the administration of these two combinations in a sequential fashion (three cycles of CAV followed by three of VP-16/cisplatin). Three hundred eligible patients were enrolled on the trial from September 1981 to October 1984. All responding patients were also treated after completion of chemotherapy with thoracic irradiation in randomly allocated doses of 2,000 and 3,750 cGy. The complete response (CR) rate to chemotherapy was slightly, but not significantly, higher on the alternating arm (52% v 44%, P = .20). However, there was no difference in disease-free or overall survival on the alternating and sequential arms, respectively (47.3 weeks v 45.1 weeks, P = .26; 61.7 weeks v 59.5 weeks, P = .56). Data on the effect of radiotherapy dose on survival are not yet mature, but it does not appear the results of this portion of the trial will alter the interpretation of the chemotherapy comparison. Patient characteristics favorably influencing survival were female sex, good performance status, younger age, and absence of supraclavicular node involvement. Two interpretations of these and other results in SCLC are suggested: (1) the difference between the schedules used is too small for the predictions of the Goldie-Coldman model to be realized in a trial of this size, or (2) VP-16/cisplatin is actually a superior regimen and any schedule that exposes patients to these drugs early in treatment will produce improved results.

Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: closing the loop in the practice guidelines development cycle.

PURPOSE: The previously described practice guidelines development cycle follows an iterative model in which recommendations are reached by a process that incorporates practitioners at all phases. A key feature is the separation of the evidence-based systematic review and the generation of recommendations from policy decisions surrounding implementation. This article describes how this implementation phase has evolved in Ontario and how implementation has affected the guidelines process. METHODS: The development of the New Drug Funding Program in Ontario and the appointment of a policy advisory committee (PAC) to make funding recommendations were reviewed. The decision-making framework of the PAC is described in this article. RESULTS: The PAC has had to address a number of issues in making funding recommendations. These issues have included dealing with evidence arising solely from phase II versus phase III trials, using economic information, and involving community representatives in its deliberations. Its activities have had a substantial impact on the practice guidelines initiative. CONCLUSION: It is possible to integrate an evidence-based, practitioner-driven approach to clinical guideline development with a funding program that takes policy considerations into account. However, even though these two roles are conceptually separate, the needs of the funding program have inevitably had an impact on the guidelines process.

Improved survival in patients with poor-prognosis malignant melanoma treated with adjuvant levamisole: a phase III study by the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

Five hundred forty-three patients with completely resected malignant melanoma who were considered to have a significant risk of developing recurrent disease were randomized to one of four study groups. One group received levamisole 2.5 mg/kg on 2 consecutive days weekly for 3 years, a second group received bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for 3 years. A third group alternated 8-week courses of BCG and levamisole for 3 years and a fourth group underwent clinical assessment at the same frequency as the three treatment groups. The median duration of follow-up is 8.5 years. The percentage of reduction in the death rate and the recurrence rate in the treatment groups compared with the control group was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model and adjusted for age, sex, and stage as covariants. The patients treated with levamisole were estimated to have a 29% reduction in both the death rate (P = .08) and the recurrence rate (P = .09) compared with patients receiving no further treatment. Fifty-five patients discontinued levamisole early because of gastrointestinal intolerance or arthralgia, myalgia, fever, and immune leukopenia. The patients treated with BCG alternating with levamisole experienced a 10% reduction in the death rate and a 6% reduction in the recurrence rate, and the patients treated with BCG alone experienced a 4% reduction in the death rate and a 3% increase in the recurrence rate compared with the control group. The degree of improvement experienced by the patients that were treated by levamisole is of sufficient magnitude to warrant further investigation of this dose of levamisole as adjuvant treatment in patients with melanoma.

Phase III double-blind comparison of dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron and an evaluation of the additive role of dexamethasone in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of dolasetron and ondansetron in controlling nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours; to evaluate the efficacy when dexamethasone is added to either drug in the first 24 hours; and to extend these comparisons over 7 days in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study with six parallel arms that used a 2 x 2 factorial design in chemotherapy-naive patients. In arm 1, dolasetron (2.4 mg/kg) was given intravenously (I.V.) prechemotherapy, followed 24 hours later by oral dolasetron (200 mg once daily) for 6 days. Arms 2 and 3 consisted of dolasetron and dexamethasone 8 mg I.V., followed 24 hours later by oral dexamethasone (8 mg once daily) in one arm, and oral dexamethasone and dolasetron in the other, also for 6 days. In arms 4, 5, and 6, ondansetron (32 mg I.V. or 8 mg orally twice daily) was administered in a similar manner to arms 1, 2, and 3 before and 24 hours after chemotherapy. Mean nausea severity (MNS) was assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS) in a daily diary. RESULTS: Of 703 patients enrolled, 696 were eligible. There were 343 dolasetron- and 353 ondansetron-treated patients; 57% of dolasetron-treated patients had complete protection in the first 24 hours versus 67% of patients who received ondansetron (P = .013). MNS was also more pronounced on the dolasetron arm (P = .051). Sixty-seven percent of patients who received added dexamethasone in the first 24 hours had complete protection, compared with 55% without dexamethasone (P < .001). MNS was significantly reduced with the addition of dexamethasone (P < .001). At 7 days, dolasetron and ondansetron had equivalent complete protection rates (36% and 39%, respectively). With the addition of dexamethasone, 48% of patients compared with 28% had complete protection (P < .001). MNS was significantly improved with added dexamethasone (P < .001). CONCLUSION: At the doses used, dolasetron was significantly less effective than ondansetron at controlling nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, but there was no demonstrable difference between both drugs over 7 days. The addition of dexamethasone significantly improved the efficacy of both drugs in the first 24 hours and over 7 days.

Meta-analysis of chemotherapy versus combined modality treatment trials in Hodgkin's disease. International Database on Hodgkin's Disease Overview Study Group.

DESIGN: To perform a meta-analysis of all randomized trials that compared chemotherapy (CT) alone versus combined modality treatment (CT + radiotherapy [RT]) for which individual patient data could be made available. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on 1,740 patients treated on 14 different trials that included 16 relevant comparisons have been analysed. Eight comparisons were designed to evaluate the benefit of additional RT after the same CT (CT1 v CT1 + RT; additional RT design). Eight comparisons were designed to evaluate whether RT in a combined modality setting can be substituted by CT using either more cycles of the same CT or regimens that contain additional drugs (CT1 + CT2 v CT1 + RT or CT1 v CT2 + RT; parallel RT/CT design). RESULTS: Additional RT showed an 11% overall improvement in tumor control rate after 10 years (P = .0001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4% to 18%). No difference could be detected with respect to overall survival (P = .57; 95% CI, -10% to 4%). In contrast, when combined modality treatment was compared with CT alone in the parallel-design trials, no difference could be detected in tumor control rates (P = .43; 95% CI, -6% to 9%), but overall survival was significantly better after 10 years in the group that did not receive RT (P = .045; 8% difference; 95% CI, 1% to 15%). There were significantly fewer fatal events among patients in continuous complete remission (relative risk [RR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.53; P = .005) if no RT was given. CONCLUSION: Combined modality treatment in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's disease overall has a significantly inferior long-term survival outcome than CT alone if CT is given over an appropriate number of cycles. The role of RT in this setting is limited to specific indications.

A critical appraisal of ticlopidine, a new antiplatelet agent. Effectiveness and clinical indications for prophylaxis of atherosclerotic events.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations are broadening for the prophylaxis of atherosclerotic disorders, but aspirin is the only widely used agent. Ticlopidine hydrochloride, a new antiplatelet medication, has recently been approved for prescription in North America. We reviewed the major clinical trials of ticlopidine and derived guidelines for its use. METHODS: Studies of ticlopidine were sought through MEDLINE for 1980 to 1990 and through bibliographies of retrieved articles. All published, randomized trials of ticlopidine were appraised if they reported major morbidity and mortality as primary end points. All eligible studies were formally reviewed by an expert panel according to published principles for critical appraisal of the medical literature. Both benefits and risks were quantified. RESULTS: Four randomized trials reported major clinical end points. In these, ticlopidine was more effective than placebo for preventing recurrences after completed stroke; was more effective than aspirin for patients with transient ischemic attacks and partial strokes; and reduced vascular death and nonfatal myocardial infarction in an open trial among patients with unstable angina. For patients with intermittent claudication ticlopidine, was not significantly better than placebo for preventing myocardial infarction or stroke. Side effects were more common with ticlopidine than with aspirin or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Ticlopidine should be prescribed in place of aspirin for stroke prophylaxis or unstable angina if the patient is unable to tolerate aspirin. Ticlopidine may also benefit patients who experience new ischemic events while taking aspirin or, probably, patients with peripheral vascular disease. A complete blood cell count should be performed every 2 weeks during the first 3 months of therapy to check for leukopenia.

Bilateral massive adrenal hemorrhage. Assessment of putative risk factors by the case-control method.

Case reports and case series have identified putative risk factors for the development of bilateral massive adrenal hemorrhage (BMAH) in humans. The anatomy and physiology of the adrenal gland allow development of a model to fit the pathophysiology behind these risk factors. Until now, these risk factors were not systematically tested using analytical epidemiologic studies. A case-control study was undertaken using sources of cases and controls from multiple teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada. The results of multivariate logistic regression indicated that thrombocytopenia (odds ratio [OR] = 14.6, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 3.0-70.1, p < 0.001), heparin exposure of any route or type beyond 3 days (4-6 days: OR = 17.0, CI = 1.9-154.6; > 6 days: OR = 33.5, CI = 4.3-262.6; p < 0.001), and sepsis (OR = 6.3, CI = 1.2-32.2, p = 0.019) were most strongly and independently associated with development of BMAH. Another weaker positive association included invasive radiologic procedure (OR = 4.4, CI = 0.9-22.1, p = 0.055). Neither major surgery or duration of hospitalization were independent risk factors. Although coronary artery disease and possibly diabetes and hypertension appeared to be markers for lower risk of BMAH, this may be a result of bias introduced by using hospital controls ("Berkson bias"), as the effect was not explained by a protective effect of vasoactive medications. Thus, a picture of the high-risk patient should include a patient who has been treated with heparin (any route or type) beyond 3 days and has had thrombocytopenia (not necessarily induced by heparin) during the course of an illness. If the setting includes unexplained abdominal, chest, or back pain; fever; confusion; hypotension or shock; abrupt anemia; or electrolyte disorders, clinicians should not hesitate to cover empirically with lifesaving glucocorticoids while awaiting results of confirmatory tests.

A proposal for a new approach to intergroup cancer trials.

Currently, North American intergroup trials are conducted according to the Intergroup Guidelines, which require that a lead group take responsibility for data management. Intergroup studies conducted in this manner have been very successful in rapidly accruing large numbers of patients to trials addressing significant questions, but it has been difficult for group statistical centres to cope with the resultant peaks in data flow. Our groups recently succeeded in combining the data from three independently designed and conducted trials to carry out a planned pooled analysis. This experience has led us to employ the same approach to data management in designing a forthcoming intergroup trial. We will use a common protocol and capture the same data elements on our forms, but each group will be responsible for the collection and quality control of its own data. A common data set will be created and updated periodically during the study, and will be used for the final analysis. We suggest that this model has advantages over the current approach to data management on intergroup trials, but still retains the features which distinguish an intergroup study from meta-analysis.