Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1990 Oct;62(4):687–691. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1990.358

Recruitment, follow-up and analysis times in clinical trials of cancer treatment: a case study.

J L Haybittle 1, C J Alcock 1, J F Fowler 1, J W Hopewell 1, M Rezvani 1, G Wiernik 1
PMCID: PMC1971500  PMID: 2223591

Abstract

A study has been made of the way in which the number of events available for analysis in a clinical trial was dependent on the recruitment period, the maximum follow-up time on individual patients and the length of time between the start of the trial and its analysis. The events considered were deaths, local recurrences and late radiation effects on normal tissue in patients treated for cancer of the laryngo-pharynx by two different fractionation regimes. The relationship is demonstrated between the number of events and the 95% confidence intervals that can be placed on differences between results in the two arms of the trial. It was found, in this particular trial, that no significant improvement in precision was gained by following up patients beyond 5 years or carrying out the analysis later than 2 years after the end of recruitment. The results are discussed in the context of the initial design of clinical trials, particularly those in which the aim is to test therapeutic equivalence.

Full text

PDF
687

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Blackwelder W. C. "Proving the null hypothesis" in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1982 Dec;3(4):345–353. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(82)90024-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Freedman L. S. Tables of the number of patients required in clinical trials using the logrank test. Stat Med. 1982 Apr-Jun;1(2):121–129. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780010204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. George S. L., Desu M. M. Planning the size and duration of a clinical trial studying the time to some critical event. J Chronic Dis. 1974 Feb;27(1):15–24. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(74)90004-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Haybittle J. L. Repeated assessment of results in clinical trials of cancer treatment. Br J Radiol. 1971 Oct;44(526):793–797. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-44-526-793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Makuch R., Simon R. Sample size requirements for evaluating a conservative therapy. Cancer Treat Rep. 1978 Jul;62(7):1037–1040. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rodary C., Com-Nougue C., Tournade M. F. How to establish equivalence between treatments: a one-sided clinical trial in paediatric oncology. Stat Med. 1989 May;8(5):593–598. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Wiernik G., Bates T. D., Berry R. J., Brindle J., Bullimore J., Dalby J. E., Flatman G. E., Fowler J. F., Hadden R. C., Haybittle J. L. Seventh interim progress report of the british institute of radiology fractionation study of 3F/week versus 5F/week in radiotherapy of the laryngo-pharynx. Br J Radiol. 1982 Jul;55(655):505–510. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-55-655-505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wiernik G., Bates T. D., Bleehen N. M., Brindle J. M., Bullimore J., Fowler J. F., Haybittle J. L., Howard N., Laing A. H., Lindup R. Final report of the general clinical results of the British Institute of Radiology fractionation study of 3F/wk versus 5F/wk in radiotherapy of carcinoma of the laryngo-pharynx. Br J Radiol. 1990 Mar;63(747):169–180. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-63-747-169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES