Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of intention to treat analysis as reported in randomised controlled trials in four large medical journals. Design: Survey of all reports of randomised controlled trials published in 1997 in the BMJ, Lancet, JAMA , and New England Journal of Medicine . Main outcome measures: Methods of dealing with deviations from random allocation and missing data. Results: 119 (48%) of the reports mentioned intention to treat analysis. Of these, 12 excluded any patients who did not start the allocated intervention and three did not analyse all randomised subjects as allocated. Five reports explicitly stated that there were no deviations from random allocation. The remaining 99 reports seemed to analyse according to random allocation, but only 34 of these explicitly stated this. 89 (75%) trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable. The methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to a biased treatment effect. 29 (24%) trials had more than 10% of responses missing for the primary outcome, the methodsof handling the missing responses were similar in this subset. Conclusions: The intention to treat approach is often inadequately described and inadequately applied. Authors should explicitly describe the handling of deviations from randomised allocation and missing responses and discuss the potential effect of any missing response. Readers should critically assess the validity of reported intention to treat analyses. Key messages Intention to treat gives a pragmatic estimate of the benefit of a change in treatment policy rather than of potential benefit in patients who receive treatment exactly as planned Full application of intention to treat is possible only when complete outcome data are available for all randomised subjects About half of all published reports of randomised controlled trials stated that intention to treat was used, but handling of deviations from randomised allocation varied widely Many trials had some missing data on the primary outcome variable, and methods used to deal with this were generally inadequate, potentially leading to bias Intention to treat analyses are often inadequately described and inadequately applied

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/319/7211/670.full.pdf

What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT) to pelvic radiation therapy (RT) will improve the survival of early-stage, high-risk patients with cervical carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage IA2, IB, and IIA carcinoma of the cervix, initially treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and who had positive pelvic lymph nodes and/or positive margins and/or microscopic involvement of the parametrium were eligible for this study. Patients were randomized to receive RT or RT + CT. Patients in each group received 49.3 GY RT in 29 fractions to a standard pelvic field. Chemotherapy consisted of bolus cisplatin 70 mg/m2 and a 96-hour infusion of fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m2/d every 3 weeks for four cycles, with the first and second cycles given concurrent to RT. RESULTS: Between 1991 and 1996, 268 patients were entered onto the study. Two hundred forty-three patients were assessable (127 RT + CT patients and 116 RT patients). Progression-fre...

Concurrent Chemotherapy and Pelvic Radiation Therapy Compared With Pelvic Radiation Therapy Alone as Adjuvant Therapy After Radical Surgery in High-Risk Early-Stage Cancer of the Cervix

Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common malignancy diagnosed in women worldwide. Nearly all cases of cervical cancer result from infection with the human papillomavirus, and the prevention of cervical cancer includes screening and vaccination. Primary treatment options for patients with cervical cancer may include surgery or a concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy with external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Cervical cancer causes more than one quarter of a million deaths per year as a result of grossly deficient treatments in many developing countries. This warrants a concerted global effort to counter the shocking loss of life and suffering that largely goes unreported. This article provides a review of the biology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer, and discusses the global cervical cancer crisis and efforts to improve the prevention and treatment of the disease in underdeveloped countries. Cancer 2017;123:2404-12. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cervical cancer: A global health crisis

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470204511701413.pdf

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(97)02250-2.pdf

Giorgio Favini

Papers

Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer