medical research/news item: (UK) Study finds EPB41L3 'protector gene' inactivated in 65% of ovarian cancers

Note: in research

"A new gene that normally protects againstovarian cancer is switched-off in two-thirds of cases of the disease, reveals a study published in the journal Neoplasia today.
This 'protector gene', known as EPB41L3, is inactivated in 65 per cent of ovarian cancers. And reactivating the gene halted tumour growth and triggered large numbers of the cancer cells to commit suicide. The research, co-funded by Cancer Research UK and gynaecological cancer research charity
The Eve Appeal, raises the prospect for developing therapies that mimic or restore the function of the gene to kill ovarian cancer cells in a targeted way...."

Putting research into context—revisited : The Lancet - Editorial

Note: this article is free to view; requires registration

"In July, 2005, Lancet editors wrote that “we will require authors of clinical trials submitted to The Lancet to include a clear summary of previous research findings, and to explain how their trial's findings affect this summary.
They called for the relation between existing and new evidence to be referenced to a published systematic review or meta-analysis. The CONSORT statement2 first required in 1996 that findings should be interpreted to take into account the totality of the evidence.
Michael Clarke and colleagues have been monitoring since then how the five high-impact journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine) have been doing. They report in The Lancet today their latest results for May, 2009.
Their findings are discouraging: only one of 24 reports that were not first trials placed the results in the context of an updated systematic review in the Discussion.
They conclude that there is no evidence of progress since 1997, and that editors and authors are not informing sufficiently those who have to make decisions about health care."
Clearly, clinicians and others in health care need to know what the results of research mean for patients.
Authors and editors can help them by doing exactly what CONSORT4 and Clarke and colleagues call for. 
Authors need to spell out what their study adds to other work and what that means for clinical practice...."cont'd

www.icon7trial.org - Avastin trial

Data from ICON7 will be submitted for presentation at an upcoming medical meeting, Genentech said.

The ICON7 study is sponsored by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in the UK, led by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit and conducted through an international network of researchers in the Gynaecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG).

ICON7 is an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, Phase III study in 1,528 women with previously untreated epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube carcinoma. The trial evaluates Avastin plus standard of care chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) followed by the continued use of Avastin alone, compared to chemotherapy alone.

Ottawa charity director charged with $1M fraud (not cancer)

Second Phase III Study Showed Avastin-Containing Regimen Helped Women With Ovarian Cancer Live Longer Without Their Disease Getting Worse 2nd media article (financial news)

The Associated Press (press release) : Genentech posts new Avastin ovarian cancer results