癌症化疗生存率的问题

本帖于 2014-08-24 06:10:28 时间, 由普通用户 viewfinder 编辑

可以看一下这篇文章,
Letter to Editor: The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to the Management of Cancer

Morgan的文章有这么几个问题:

(1) 2%生存率的提高是比较经过化疗和未经过化疗的癌症病人。但是他们未区分病情严重情况,未化疗的那一组包括本来就未经医生推荐化疗的早期病人。

  (2) 五年生存率并不能完全衡量化疗效果。比如一些乳癌患者经过化疗,5年后的生存率仍然超过对比组。另外一些如晚期结肠癌和肺癌,化疗对平均寿命的增加(可能小于5年)未考虑。

 (3)比较有意思的一个情况是,摩根的研究未包括一些已知的治愈率高的癌症,如白血病,某些淋巴癌。另外数据的选择也有些问题。

没法贴PDF文件。大致贴一下text,格式有点乱。


The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to the Management of Cancer

Sir  We read with interest the paper by Morgan et al. [1], which
claimed to assess the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic
chemotherapy to survival in adults with cancer. We are concerned that
their approach underestimates the contribution of chemotherapy to the care
of cancer patients. By using all newly diagnosed adult patients as
a denominator, despite the fact that chemotherapy is not indicated for
many of these patients, the magnitude of the benefit in many sub-groups is
obscured.
 
Furthermore, the authors use a time-point of 5 years to assess effect on
survival. This will underestimate the efficacy of chemotherapy because of
late relapses. In breast cancer, the leading cause of cancer death in women,
survival curves show ongoing relapses beyond 5 years. Adjuvant
chemotherapy produces an absolute survival benefit at 10 years in women
less than 50 years with node-negative and node-positive disease of 7% and
11%, respectively, whereas the benefit at 5 years is 3% and 6.8% [2].
Quality-adjusted Times Without Symptoms of disease and Toxicity of
treatment (Q-TWIST) analysis has shown additional benefits beyond just
survival, with adjuvant treatment of breast cancer prolonging qualityadjusted
survival, partly by delaying symptomatic disease relapse [3].
 
The paper also contains several inaccuracies and omissions. The authors
omitted leukaemias, which they curiously justify in part by citing the fact
that it is usually treated by clinical haematologists rather than medical
oncologists. They also wrongly state that only intermediate and high-grade
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of large-B cell type can be cured with
chemotherapy, and ignore T-cell lymphomas and the highly curable
Burkitt’s lymphoma. They neglect to mention the significant survival
benefit achievable with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell
transplantation to treat newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma [4]. In ovarian
cancer, they quote a survival benefit from chemotherapy of 11% at 5 years,
based on a single randomised-controlled trial (RCT), in which chemotherapy
was given in both arms [5]; however, subsequent trials have
reported higher 5-year survival rates. In cancers such as myeloma and
ovarian cancer, in which chemotherapy has been used long before our
current era of well-designed RCTs, the lack of RCT comparing
chemotherapy to best supportive care should not be misconstrued to
dismiss or minimise any survival benefit. In head and neck cancer, the
authors erroneously claim the benefit from chemotherapy given concomitantly
with radiotherapy in a meta-analysis to be 4%, when 8% was in fact
reported [6].
 
The authors do not address the important benefits from chemotherapy to
treat advanced cancer. Many patients with cancers such as lung and colon
present or relapse with advanced incurable disease. For these conditions,
chemotherapy significantly improves median survival rates, and may also
improve quality of life by reducing symptoms and complications of cancer.
Advanced cancer consumes a significant component of the healthcare
dollar, and chemotherapy can be a cost-effective treatment. For example,
lung cancer with more than two-thirds of patients presenting with
advanced disease, accounted for 5.6% of total healthcare system costs in
Australia in 1993–1994 [7]. The use of chemotherapy rather than bestsupportive
care alone is cost-effective, as it reduces costs of treatment of
complications of lung cancer and requirement for palliative radiotherapy to
control pain [8,9].
 
Although we fully agree that there is a need for evidence-based
assessment of all treatments, the contribution of this type of analysis, with
pooling of all cancer patients, is questionable and potentially misleading. It
is time to focus on future improvement by providing optimal evidencebased
multi-disciplinary care to our patients.

L. MILESHKIN
D. RISCHIN
H. M. PRINCE
J. ZALCBERG
Division of Haematology and Medical Oncology,
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre,
Melbourne, Australia
References

1 Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic
chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clin Oncol
2004;16:549–560.
2 Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy
for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet
1998;352:930–942.
3 Cole BF, Gelber RD, Gelber S, Coates AS, Goldhirsch A. Polychemotherapy
for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised clinical
trials with quality-adjusted survival analysis. Lancet 2001;358:277–286.
4 Harousseau JL, Shaughnessy Jr, J, Richardson P. Multiple myeloma.
Hematology (Am Soc Hematol Educ Program) 2004;237–256.
5 Tattersall MH, Swanson CE, Solomon HJ. Long-term survival with
advanced ovarian cancer: analysis of 5-year survivors in the Australian
trial comparing combination versus sequential chlorambucil and
cisplatin therapy. Gynaecol Oncol 1992;47:292–297.
6 Pignon JP. Chemotherapy added to locoregional treatment for head and
neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses of updated individual
data. MACH-HC Collaborative Group. Meta-analysis of
chemotherapy on head and neck cancer. Lancet 2000;355:949–955.
7 The Cancer Council Australia. Clinical practice guidelines for the
prevention, diagnosis and management of lung cancer. National Health
and Medical Research Council; 2004.
8 Berthelot JM, Will BP, Evans WK, Coyle D, Earle CC, Bordeleau L.
Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic
non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321–1329.
9 Szczepura A. Healthcare outcomes: gemcitabine cost-effectiveness in the
treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2002;38(Suppl 2):
21–28.
294 CLINICAL ONCOLOGY

所有跟帖: 

为VMM认真严谨的态度点个赞!:) -恶俗老狼- 给 恶俗老狼 发送悄悄话 恶俗老狼 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 05:53:18

+1:点赞! -26484915- 给 26484915 发送悄悄话 26484915 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:46:02

+1: 为VMM认真严谨的态度点个赞!:) -志在千里- 给 志在千里 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 17:51:50

谢谢哈。 -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 07:21:44

你那个不是实名。 -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:11:29

是要驾照号码还是护照? -闽姑- 给 闽姑 发送悄悄话 闽姑 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:15:10

就要你嘀真名实姓,加电话号码。 -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:25:06

文学城有我的e-mail.那就改说实ID点赞. -闽姑- 给 闽姑 发送悄悄话 闽姑 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:31:47

用唯一地爱地点赞 -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:41:46

一两年前你的ID没了,也没现在这么酸?怎么到花果山这么一逛,就酸溜溜地转. -闽姑- 给 闽姑 发送悄悄话 闽姑 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 12:00:28

明白了,用脚投票.哈哈哈 -闽姑- 给 闽姑 发送悄悄话 闽姑 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 10:04:58

用机器人的脚。 -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (250 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 10:25:51

也没用的.某人的ID被封,怪我.结果自报被封了7个ID.哈哈,得有7个e-mail注册啊,神! -闽姑- 给 闽姑 发送悄悄话 闽姑 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 11:20:52

我用我唯1的ID给VMM这1帖点1次赞 -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (42 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:14:47

谢谢,很感动:) -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (99 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 10:14:32

嗯,俺听VMM的,打住了。 -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (20 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 10:45:07

你的第一个问题不存在, 该文章的数据来源于randomised clinical trials -益生菌- 给 益生菌 发送悄悄话 益生菌 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 07:01:35

他们处理数据的时候用了 total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (924 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 07:17:30

是的。先不论造假的,还存在各种manipulate数据的方法,俺同事称之为data massaging -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (257 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 07:37:51

对,读书人偷书不叫偷 -医者意也- 给 医者意也 发送悄悄话 医者意也 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 07:52:10

学术界也在不断修正自己。比如有人发了这篇文章,有不同意见一样可以发表,只要是摆事实讲道理。如果某人的结果不能被重复, -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (27 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 08:01:39

是的,这里面涉及到个性化治疗的问题,需要做的工作还很多。医生个人的经验毕竟是有限。 -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:56:36

是这样的。那篇文章有点数字游戏的感觉,先把最有效的除去,然后把该不该用化疗的都做分母,硬凑出一个数据。 -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 09:58:51

点赞 -七把叉叉- 给 七把叉叉 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 10:13:33

点赞。 -美妙- 给 美妙 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 10:47:51

你又有工夫数数了? -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 12:13:47

我有工夫回复和关心,但没有那个闲心关注是58个帖还是56个跟帖 -TBz- 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 14:15:44

谢谢,说得很好。人都带有主观性,我认为唯一的解决方法是开放和相互验证,和时间的淘汰。不过个人对双盲还是比较信任的。 -viewfinder- 给 viewfinder 发送悄悄话 viewfinder 的博客首页 (96 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 12:14:14

谢谢。祝好。 -欲千北- 给 欲千北 发送悄悄话 欲千北 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 08/24/2014 postreply 12:52:39

请您先登陆,再发跟帖!