The randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is the “gold standard” for establishing the effect of any intervention. This approach, however, is often not feasible with rare diseases such as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
Methods
We review the principles of evidence-based medicine to see which are particularly pertinent to the study of rare diseases.
Results
When an RCT is not feasible, attention is given to determining all the available prior data. Evaluation of the new data and the historic base requires attention to biases, but can allow estimation of a “true” study result.
Conclusions
Even when an RCT cannot be performed because of insufficient cases, utilization of evidence-based methodology can help minimize bias and maximize the truth of observed new data.
References
1.
JAMA patient page. Medical research. Finding the best information.JAMA.2000; 284: 1336.
2.
DjulbegovicB., SoaresH.P., KumarA.. What kind of evidence do patients and practitioners need: evidence profiles based on 5 key evidence-based principles to summarize data on benefits and harms.Cancer Treat Rev.2006; 32: 572–576. Epub 2006 Aug 17.
3.
HamptonT.. Rare disease research gets boost.JAMA.2006; 295: 2836–2838.
4.
DjulbegovicB.. Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research.Curr Oncol Rep.2001; 3: 389–395.
5.
HastieR., DawesR.M.. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making.Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2001.
6.
SilvermanW.A., ChalmersI.. Casting and drawing lots: a time-honoured way of dealing with uncertainty and for ensuring fairness.The James Lind Library2002. Available at: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org. Accessed February 27, 2007.
7.
DjulbegovicB., KumarA., SoaresH.. What is the probability that new cancer treatments are better than standard treatments?J Clin Oncol.2006; 24: 18S.
8.
DjulbegovicB.. Articulating and responding to uncertainties in clinical research.J Med Philosophy.2007. In press.
9.
AltmanD.G., SchulzK.F., MoherD.. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.Ann Intern Med.2001; 134: 663–694.
10.
JuniP., AltmanD.G., EggerM.. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.BMJ.2001; 323: 42–46.
11.
IoannidisJ.P.. Why most published research findings are false.PLoS Med.2005; 2: e124. Epub 2005 Aug 30.
12.
PetersW.P., RossM., VredenburghJ.J.. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow support as consolidation after standard-dose adjuvant therapy for high-risk primary breast cancer.J Clin Oncol.1993; 11: 1132–1143.
13.
SchulzK.F., ChalmersI., HayesR.J.. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.JAMA.1995; 273: 408–412.
14.
WheatleyK.. SAB: a promising new treatment to improve remission rates in AML in the elderly?Br J Haematol.2002; 118: 432–433.
15.
JuniP., EggerM.. Commentary: empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials.Int J Epidemiol.2005; 34: 87–88. Epub 2005 Jan 13.
16.
TherasseP., ArbuckS.G., EisenhauerE.A.. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.J Natl Cancer Inst.2000; 92: 205–216.
17.
SimesR.J.. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.J Clin Oncol.1986; 4: 1529–1541.
18.
HalpernS.D., KarlawishJ.H., BerlinJ.A.. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials.JAMA.2002; 288: 358–362.
JadadA.R.. Randomised Controlled Trials: A User's Guide.London: BMJ Books; 1998.
21.
The Impact of Randomized Clinical Trials on Health Policy and Medical Practice: Background Paper.Washington, DC: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTABP-H-22; August 1983.
22.
loannidisJ.P., HaidichA.B., PappaM.. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies.JAMA.2001; 286: 821–830.
23.
AtkinsD., EcclesM., FlottorpS.. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group.BMC Health Serv Res.2004; 4: 38.
24.
GuyattG., VistG., Falck-YtterY.. An emerging consensus on grading recommendations?ACP J Club.2006; 144: A8-9.
25.
ChengA.L., ChenY.C., WangC.H.. Direct comparisons of peripheral T-cell lymphoma with diffuse B-cell lymphoma of comparable histologi-cal grades: should peripheral T-cell lymphoma be considered separately?J Clin Oncol.1989; 7: 725–731.
26.
KwakL.W., WilsonM., WeissL.M.. Similar outcome of treatment of B-cell and T-cell diffuse large-cell lymphomas: the Stanford experience.J Clin Oncol.1991; 9: 1426–1431.
27.
SavageK.J.. Aggressive peripheral T-cell lymphomas (specified and unspecified types).Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program.2005: 267–277.
28.
ArmitageJ.O., VoseJ.M., WeisenburgerD.D.. Towards understanding the peripheral T-cell lymphomas.Ann Oncol.2004; 15: 1447–1449.
29.
DjulbegovicB.. Principles of research synthesis. In: PerryM., ed. ASCO Educational Session, 39 Annual Meeting.Washington, DC: ASCO; 2003; 737–750.
30.
LilfordR.J., ThorntonJ.G., BraunholtzD.. Clinical trials and rare diseases: a way out of a conundrum.BMJ.1995; 311: 1621–1625.
31.
GallinJ.I., AllingD.W., MalechH.L.. Itraconazole to prevent fungal infections in chronic granulomatous disease.N Engl J Med.2003; 348: 2416–2422.
32.
A clinical evaluation of the International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.The Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Classification Project.Blood.1997; 89: 3909–3918.
33.
LaraP.N.Jr, HigdonR., LimN.. Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrollment.J Clin Oncol.2001; 19: 1728–1733.
BrandstatterE., GigerenzerG., HertwigR.. The priority heuristic: making choices without trade-offs.Psychol Rev.2006; 113: 409–432.
36.
GlasziouP., ChalmersI., RawlinsM.. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise.BMJ.2007; 334: 349–351.
37.
EggerM., SmithG.D., AltmanD.G., eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context.2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.
38.
ClarkO., ClarkL., DjulbegovicB.. Is clinical research still too haphazard?Lancet.2001; 358: 1648.
39.
RosenbergW., DonaldA.. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem solving.BMJ.1995; 310: 1122–1126.
40.
ClarkeM.. Doing new research? Don't forget the old.PLoS Med.2004; 1: e35. Epub 2004 Nov 30.
41.
LilfordR.J., DjulbegovicB.. Uncertainty about clinical equipoise: equipoise and uncertainty principle are not mutually exclusive.BMJ.2001; 322: 795.
42.
CourtneyH., KirklandJ., ViguerieP.. Strategy under uncertainty.Harv Bus Rev.1997; 75: 66–79.
43.
FreedmanB.. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research.N Engl J Med.1987; 317: 141–145.
44.
WeijerC., ShapiroS.H., Cranley GlassK.. Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomized trial: for and against.BMJ.2000; 321: 756–758.
45.
SpiegelhalterD.J., MylesJ.P., JonesD.R.. Methods in health service research: an introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment.BMJ.1999; 319: 508–512.
46.
TanS.B., DearK.B., BruzziP.. Strategy for randomised clinical trials in rare cancers.BMJ.2003; 327: 47–49.
