Challenges of Interpreting Registry Data in Prostate Cancer: Interpreting Retrospective Results Along With or in Absence of Clinical Trial Data
Menée aux Etats-Unis à partir de données du registre national des cancers portant sur 42 765 patients atteints d'un cancer de la prostate à haut risque de récidive, cette étude met en évidence des durées de survie similaires chez les patients traités par prostatectomie radicale et ceux recevant un traitement combinant radiothérapie externe et curiethérapie avec ou sans traitement anti-androgénique
The primary goal of clinical research is to inform and optimize the care of patients. In particular, comparative effectiveness research compares, for example, treatment A versus B versus C; or intervention A versus B versus C; or test A versus B versus C, to see which treatment (or intervention or test) is the most effective. Various study designs—ranging from randomized trials to prospective nonrandomized studies to retrospective studies including analyses of large cancer registries—all have the same goal of determining which intervention is most effective and which causes more or fewer benefits and harms to the patient. It is well recognized that no single study design is perfect, not even the traditional gold standard of randomized trials. Often, multiple studies are necessary to accumulate a sufficient amount and quality of evidence to best inform clinical practice.
Journal of Clinical Oncology , éditorial en libre accès, 2017