We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Evaluation of New Treatments in Radiation Oncology Are They Better Than Standard Treatments?

Heloisa P. Soares, MD; Ambuj Kumar, MD, MPH; Stephanie Daniels, RN, MPH; Suzanne Swann, PhD; Alan Cantor, PhD; Iztok Hozo, PhD; Mike Clark, DPhil; Fadila Serdarevic, MD, MPH; Clement Gwede, RN, PhD; Andy Trotti, MD; Benjamin Djulbegovic, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2005;293(8):970-978. doi:10.1001/jama.293.8.970.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context The superiority of innovative over standard treatments is not known. To describe accurately the outcomes of innovations that are tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 3 factors have to be considered: publication rate, quality of trials, and the choice of the adequate comparator intervention.

Objective To determine the success rate of innovative treatments by assessing preferences between experimental and standard treatments according to original investigators’ conclusions, determining the proportion of RCTs that achieved primary outcomes’ statistical significance, and performing meta-analysis to examine if the summary point estimate favored innovative vs standard treatments.

Data Sources Randomized controlled trials conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG).

Study Selection All completed phase 3 trials conducted by the RTOG since its creation in 1968 until 2002. For multiple publications of the same study, we used the one with the most complete primary outcomes and with the longest follow-up information.

Data Extraction We used the US National Cancer Institute definition of completed studies to determine the publication rate. We extracted data related to publication status, methodological quality, and treatment comparisons. One investigator extracted the data from all studies and 2 independent investigators extracted randomly about 50% of the data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus during a meeting.

Data Synthesis Data on 12 734 patients from 57 trials were evaluated. The publication rate was 95%. The quality of trials was high. We found no evidence of inappropriateness of the choice of comparator. Although the investigators judged that standard treatments were preferred in 71% of the comparisons, when data were meta-analyzed innovations were as likely as standard treatments to be successful (odds ratio for survival, 1.01; 99% confidence interval, 0.96-1.07; P = .5). In contrast, treatment-related mortality was worse with innovations (odds ratio, 1.76; 99% confidence interval, 1.01-3.07; P = .008). We found no predictable pattern of treatment successes in oncology: sometimes innovative treatments are better than the standard ones and vice versa; in most cases there were no substantive differences between experimental and conventional treatments.

Conclusion The finding that the results in individual trials cannot be predicted in advance indicates that the system and rationale for RCTs is well preserved and that successful interventions can only be identified after an RCT is completed.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?


Figure 1. Publication Rate of the Completed Phase 3 Trials Performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
Graphic Jump Location

One trial that compared 2 experimental treatments (without inclusion of a standard treatment) was excluded from our analysis. Out of 3 trials that were unpublished, we were able to evaluate the outcomes from 1 of them. Therefore, overall analysis was performed using 57 trials.

Figure 2. Overall Survival in All Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trials That Examined Survival
Graphic Jump Location

The asterisk indicates that the primary outcome of the study was survival. Large squares indicate trials that provide more information and hence have narrower 99% confidence intervals (CIs).

Figure 3. Evaluation of Innovative Treatments in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trials: Main Outcomes
Graphic Jump Location

Large squares indicate trials that provide more information and hence have narrower 99% confidence intervals (CIs).

Figure 4. Sensitivity Analysis of Impact of Methodological Quality on Survival
Graphic Jump Location

The effect of methodological quality as extractable from reports vs research protocols and data provided by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group statistical office is shown. Large squares indicate trials that provide more information and hence have narrower 99% confidence intervals (CIs).



Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles