Personalized Medicine - Vol. 9
The parts of a Cochrane systematic review and the information they contain - learning to navigate a review
| Official Title: | EphA2 Gene Targeting Using Neutral Liposomal Small Interfering RNA Delivery (IND# 72924): A Phase I Clinical Trial |
| Sponsor: | M.D. Anderson Cancer Center |
|---|---|
| Collaborator: | Ovarian Cancer Research Fund |
| Information provided by (Responsible Party): | M.D. Anderson Cancer Center ( M.D. Anderson Cancer Center ) |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01591356 |
| Sponsor: | Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center |
|---|---|
| Collaborator: | Weill Medical College of Cornell University |
| Information provided by (Responsible Party): | Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ( Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ) |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01591772 |
| David Tovey from The Cochrane Collaboration talks about systematic reviews.
» Read a transcript or
|
“While the gold standard of medical research is the randomly controlled experimental study, scientists have recently rushed to pursue observational studies, which are much easier, cheaper and quicker to do. Costs for a typical controlled trial can stretch high into the millions; observational studies can be performed for tens of thousands of dollars.The article addresses the “hot area of medical research” – the search for biomarkers.
In an observational study there is no human intervention. Researchers simply observe what is happening during the course of events, or they analyze previously gathered data and draw conclusions. In an experimental study, such as a drug trial, investigators prompt some sort of change—by giving a drug to half the participants, say—and then make inferences.
But observational studies, researchers say, are especially prone to methodological and statistical biases that can render the results unreliable. Their findings are much less replicable than those drawn from controlled research. Worse, few of the flawed findings are spotted—or corrected—in the published literature.
“You can troll the data, slicing and dicing it any way you want,” says S. Stanley Young of the U.S. National Institute of Statistical Sciences. Consequently, “a great deal of irresponsible reporting of results is going on.”
Despite such concerns among researchers, observational studies have never been more popular.
Nearly 80,000 observational studies were published in the period 1990-2000 across all scientific fields, according to an analysis performed for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters. In the following period, 2001-2011, the number of studies more than tripled to 263,557, based on a search of Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide. The analysis likely doesn’t capture every observational study in the literature, but it does indicate a pattern of growth over time.
A vast array of claims made in medicine, public health and nutrition are based on observational studies, as are those about the environment, climate change and psychology.”
“The presence or absence of the biomarkers in a patient’s blood, some theorized, could indicate a higher or lower risk for heart disease—the biggest killer in the Western world.But the story also appropriately points out the contribution obervational studies have made:
Yet these biomarkers “are either completely worthless or there are only very small effects” in predicting heart disease, says John Ioannidis of Stanford University, who extensively analyzed two decades’ worth of biomarker research and published his findings in Circulation Research journal in March. Many of the studies, he found, were undermined by statistical biases, and many of the biomarkers showed very little predictive ability of heart disease.
His conclusion is widely upheld by other scientists: Just because two events are statistically associated in a study, it doesn’t mean that one necessarily sets off the other. What is merely suggestive can be mistaken as causal.
That partly explains why observational studies in general can be replicated only 20% of the time, versus 80% for large, well-designed randomly controlled trials, says Dr. Ioannidis. Dr. Young, meanwhile, pegs the replication rate for observational data at an even lower 5% to 10%.
Whatever the figure, it suggests that a lot more of these studies are getting published. Those papers can often trigger pointless follow-on research and affect real-world practices.”
“Observational studies do have many valuable uses. They can offer early clues about what might be triggering a disease or health outcome. For example, it was data from observational trials that flagged the increased risk of heart attacks posed by the arthritis drug Vioxx. And it was observational data that helped researchers establish the link between smoking and lung cancer.”I have written many times about the weakness of news stories that fail to point out the limitations of observational studies and – more specifically – stories that use causal language to describe the findings from observational studies that can “only” point to statistical associations.
As a patient advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the interests of women with ovarian cancer, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance is pleased to provide comments on the Draft Screening Statement for Ovarian Cancer.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force is to be commended for reviewing the recent scientific publications regarding ovarian cancer screening. As the Task Force correctly noted, the latest studies confirm that the current blood and imaging tests are not useful for population based screening.
However, the Recommendation Statement does not specify that these tools are valid as part of the diagnostic protocol for women suspected of having ovarian cancer, due in large part to the presence of symptoms.
Further, the Task Force did not appear to use the results of studies that indicate more favorable results of using the CA-125 in tailored ways. For example, a study presented at the 2010 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting had more than 3,000 post-menopausal women stratified into high, medium and low risk categories based on an algorithm. The women, based on risk, then had different follow up procedures. The practice followed in this study had a low false-positive rate.
While we are by no means arguing that the CA-125 and/or transvaginal ultrasound be recommended as appropriate screening tools, we urge the Task Force to consider all available information when making its recommendations.
We also request that the recommendation include language regarding the symptoms of ovarian cancer (bloating, difficulty eating/feeling full quickly, urinary frequency or urgency, abdominal pain). We encourage the Task Force to also note that if women have symptoms of the disease these screening recommendations do not apply. We suggest: These recommendations apply only to asymptomatic women at average risk (or instead of “at average risk”, “without any hereditary or family history that would put them at an elevated risk”.)
We thank the Committee for noting that this recommendation does not apply to high risk women, including those with a known genetic mutation that puts them at an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer.
About Ovarian Cancer
According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 21,000 American women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year, and approximately 15,000 women die from the disease annually. Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in America. Currently, more than half of the women diagnosed with ovarian cancer die within five years.
About the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance
The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance is a survivor-led national umbrella organization with state and local groups representing grassroots activists, women’s health advocates and health care professionals. The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance submits this testimony as a patient advocacy group dedicated to promoting the interests of women with ovarian cancer.