Literature DB >> 23121587

Identifying and prioritising gaps in colorectal cancer trials research in Australia.

Rachel F Dear1, Alexandra L Barratt, Alison Evans, John Simes, John Newsom, Dan Kent, Sally Crossing, Catherine Holliday, Eva Segelov, George Hruby, Martin H N Tattersall.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify gaps in colorectal cancer clinical trials research in Australia and to suggest and prioritise trials to fill those gaps. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of colorectal cancer trial activity from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2011 in Australia and internationally, followed by a consensus meeting of consumers, health care professionals, researchers and funding agencies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of Phase III and randomised clinical trials in the areas of prevention, screening, surgery, adjuvant therapy, advanced disease and behavioural interventions, and priority areas of research identified by participants at the consensus meeting.
RESULTS: The registry search identified 76 colorectal cancer clinical trials (all phases) registered in Australia from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2011, of which 51 were Phase III or randomised, and 323 Phase III and randomised trials registered worldwide. In Australia, most trials were in advanced colorectal cancer (32), screening (10), and behavioural interventions (9). Worldwide, most Phase III or randomised trials were in advanced disease (94, 29.1%), surgery (64, 19.8%), behavioural interventions (38, 11.8%), and screening (30, 9.3%). At the consensus meeting, all participant groups emphasised the need for research in secondary prevention, screening, individualised treatments and follow-up care after treatment for colorectal cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a mismatch between the high proportion of registered trials in advanced colorectal cancer and the areas of priority identified. The development of specific trials in these priority areas depends on the availability of funding and the existence of plausible interventions likely to improve patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23121587     DOI: 10.5694/mja12.10623

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  5 in total

1.  The mismatch between the health research and development (R&D) that is needed and the R&D that is undertaken: an overview of the problem, the causes, and solutions.

Authors:  Roderik F Viergever
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 2.640

2.  The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise.

Authors:  Catrin Tudur Smith; Helen Hickey; Mike Clarke; Jane Blazeby; Paula Williamson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  Optimizing Patient Risk Stratification for Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer: The Role for Linked Data.

Authors:  David B Preen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Hooi C Ee; Cameron Platell; Dayna R Cenin; Lakkhina Troeung; Max Bulsara; Peter O'Leary
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2017-09-08

Review 4.  Have we increased our efforts to identify strategies which encourage colorectal cancer screening in primary care patients? A review of research outputs over time.

Authors:  Natalie Dodd; Elise Mansfield; Mariko Carey; Christopher Oldmeadow; Rob Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2018-05-21

5.  Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).

Authors:  Allison Tong; Anneliese Synnot; Sally Crowe; Sophie Hill; Andrea Matus; Nicole Scholes-Robertson; Sandy Oliver; Katherine Cowan; Mona Nasser; Soumyadeep Bhaumik; Talia Gutman; Amanda Baumgart; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-12-28       Impact factor: 4.615

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.