Identifying and prioritising gaps in colorectal cancer trials research in Australia

被引:9
作者
Dear, Rachel F. [1 ]
Barratt, Alexandra L. [1 ]
Evans, Alison [2 ]
Simes, John [3 ]
Newsom, John [4 ]
Kent, Dan [4 ]
Crossing, Sally [5 ]
Holliday, Catherine [6 ]
Segelov, Eva [7 ]
Hruby, George [8 ]
Tattersall, Martin H. N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sydney Med Sch, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[2] ZEST Hlth Strategies, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Natl Hlth & Med Res Council, Clin Trials Ctr, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Grp, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[5] Canc Voices NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[6] NSW Canc Council, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[7] St Vincents Hosp, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
[8] Royal Prince Alfred Hosp, Sydney, NSW, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
D O I
10.5694/mja12.10623
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: To identify gaps in colorectal cancer clinical trials research in Australia and to suggest and prioritise trials to fill those gaps. Design, setting and participants: Retrospective review of colorectal cancer trial activity from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2011 in Australia and internationally, followed by a consensus meeting of consumers, health care professionals, researchers and funding agencies. Main outcome measures: Proportion of Phase III and randomised clinical trials in the areas of prevention, screening, surgery, adjuvant therapy, advanced disease and behavioural interventions, and priority areas of research identified by participants at the consensus meeting. Results: The registry search identified 76 colorectal cancer clinical trials (all phases) registered in Australia from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2011, of which 51 were Phase III or randomised, and 323 Phase III and randomised trials registered worldwide. In Australia, most trials were in advanced colorectal cancer (32), screening (10), and behavioural interventions (9). Worldwide, most Phase III or randomised trials were in advanced disease (94, 29.1%), surgery (64, 19.8%), behavioural interventions (38,11.8%), and screening (30, 9.3%). At the consensus meeting, all participant groups emphasised the need for research in secondary prevention, screening, individualised treatments and follow-up care after treatment for colorectal cancer. Conclusions: There is a mismatch between the high proportion of registered trials in advanced colorectal cancer and the areas of priority identified. The development of specific trials in these priority areas depends on the availability of funding and the existence of plausible interventions likely to improve patient outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:507 / 511
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2006, A bibliography of research reports about patients'
[2]  
*AUSTR BUR STAT, 2008, AUSTR SOC TRENDS 200, P1
[3]  
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012, CANCER
[4]  
CancerCare Manitoba, 2009, CERVICAL CANC SCREEN, P1
[5]  
Cowan K, J LIND ALLIANCE GUID
[6]   The James Lind Alliance: Tackling Treatment Uncertainties Together [J].
Cowan, Katherine .
JOURNAL OF AMBULATORY CARE MANAGEMENT, 2010, 33 (03) :241-248
[7]   Landscape of cancer clinical trials in Australia: using trial registries to guide future research [J].
Dear, Rachel F. ;
Barratt, Alexandra L. ;
McGeechan, Kevin ;
Askie, Lisa ;
Simes, John ;
Tattersall, Martin H. N. .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2011, 194 (08) :387-391
[8]   Future research into the treatment of vitiligo: where should our priorities lie? Results of the vitiligo priority setting partnership [J].
Eleftheriadou, V. ;
Whitton, M. E. ;
Gawkrodger, D. J. ;
Batchelor, J. ;
Corne, J. ;
Lamb, B. ;
Ersser, S. ;
Ravenscroft, J. ;
Thomas, K. S. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2011, 164 (03) :530-536
[9]   The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease [J].
Gross, CP ;
Anderson, GF ;
Rowe, NR .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 340 (24) :1881-1887
[10]   Democratizing clinical research [J].
Lloyd, Keith ;
White, Jo .
NATURE, 2011, 474 (7351) :277-278