Methods of obtaining informed consent have evolved differently in Western countries without substantive information on the impact of these different practices on the patients. A randomised study was performed to compare two commonly adopted methods of seeking consent to randomised treatment: an individual approach at the discretion of each doctor and a uniform policy of total disclosure of all relevant information. The impact of both consent procedures on the patient's understanding and anxiety levels and on the doctor-patient relationship was assessed by means of a questionnaire given soon after the consent interview. Fifty seven patients were assigned at random to two groups: to 29 patients an individual approach to seeking consent was adopted and to 28 patients all relevant information was given. Seven patients refused consent to randomised treatment, with slightly more refusals by patients in the total disclosure group (5 v 2, p=025). The main effects of total disclosure of all information compared with an individual approach to seeking consent were: a better understanding of treatment and side effects and of research aspects of the treatments; less willingness to agree to randomised treatment; and increased anxiety. No significant differences were found in patients' perceptions of the doctor-patient relationship. A repeat questionnaire given three to four weeks later no longer showed significant differences between the two groups.
Summary The purpose of this systematic study was to provide an up to date and reliable quantitative summary of the relative benefits of various types of chemotherapy (non-platinum vs platinum, single-agent vs combination and carboplatin vs cisplatin) in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Also, to investigate whether well-defined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-or carboplatinbased therapy. Meta-analyses were based on updated individual patient data from all available randomized controlled trials (published and unpublished), including 37 trials, 5667 patients and 4664 deaths. The results suggest that platinum-based chemotherapy is better than nonplatinum therapy, show a trend in favour of platinum combinations over single-agent platinum, and suggest that cisplatin and carboplatin are equally effective. There is no good evidence that cisplatin is more or less effective than carboplatin in any particular subgroup of patients.Keywords: meta-analysis; systematic review; randomized controlled trials; advanced ovarian cancer; chemotherapy Health care professionals and patients alike are becoming increasingly aware of the need to make medical decisions on the basis of up-to-date, objective and unbiased research (Chalmers and Haynes, 1994). The most reliable information results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Unfortunately, most RCTs, including those conducted in ovarian cancer, have been too small to demonstrate moderate treatment benefits with reliability, and many results have been inconclusive or contradictory. The Advanced Ovarian Cancer Trialists Group (AOCTG) recognized that the best means of synthesizing such randomized evidence is by systematic meta-analysis. In 1988, five meta-analyses of chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer using updated individual patient data were initiated. The first results were published in 1991 (AOCTG, 1991). The AOCTG recognized the importance of updating these results especially for the comparison of carboplatin and cisplatin, in which the data were relatively immature. The comparison of platinum analogues was considered of such clinical importance that further new investigations were initiated to identify whether any particular type of women or tumour would benefit more from either cisplatin-or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODSTrials were eligible for inclusion provided they examined first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer, were properly randomized and made one of the treatment comparisons described below. Trials were identified by bibliographic searches using MEDLINE and CancerLit, by hand searching relevant meeting proceedings and by consulting trial registers (AOCTG, 1991). Both published and unpublished trials were included and updated data were sought for all randomized patients. All data were checked thoroughly and the final database entries for each trial were verified by the responsible trialist or data centre.All analyses were based on intention to treat. Survival analyses were stratified by trial, and t...
The rate and clinical features of patients admitted to King George V Hospital with extraovarian peritoneal serous papillary carcinoma during a 9-year period were reviewed. In this time, 31 of 236 (13%) patients with an initial diagnosis of invasive serous ovarian carcinoma fulfilled the surgicopathologic criteria for this entity. All patients had disseminated tumor equivalent to ovarian Stage I11 and IV disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO]) and with predominantly high-grade neoplasms. They were managed by surgical exploration, tumor debulking where possible, and postoperative chemotherapy. A comparison with a contemporaneous series of 139 patients with primary epithelial ovarian carcinoma matched for stage and grade of disease and managed similarly showed no difference in actuarial survival. The median survival times were 11.3 months for patients with extraovarian serous papillary carcinomas and 13.5 months for patients with equivalent primary ovarian neoplasms. The features of the disease and the treatment regimens used are discussed. Cancer 64:llO-115, 1989.
This work represents the first set of HU scores for numerous cancer sites derived using Canadian preference weights. The dataset demonstrated construct validity and HU scores varied by general socio-demographic and clinical parameters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.