PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12355941

[Urology].

Shiro Hinotsu·Hideyuki Akaza
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We reviewed comparative clinical studies for prostate cancer and bladder cancer performed in Japan. A systematic search was done using PubMed and Icyushi WEB to find randomized clinical trials and the result was verified. Each manuscript was summarized according to the seven items of stage, entry period, exposure, endpoint, sample size, method of randomization and result. Forty reports were found as randomized clinical trials for prostate cancer, and sixty-two reports were identified for bladder cancer. Most exposures for advanced prostate cancer were hormonal therapy involving intravesical instillation after transurethral resection for superficial bladder cancer. At minimum, we have clarified that large scale randomized trials have been conducted in Japan for both prostate cancer and bladder cancer.

Explore related subjects

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCystectomyFemaleHumansMaleProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesSurvival AnalysisUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shiro Hinotsu, Hideyuki Akaza. 2002. [Urology].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12355941/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures.

The interpretation of between-group comparisons is facilitated by the creation of treatment groups that are similar to each other in baseline composition. To prevent treatment effects from being confounded with time effects, most trials use restricted randomization to force balance. An unintended consequence of these restrictions is that they create patterns that allow for the prediction of future treatment allocations, and hence selection bias, especially in unmasked trials. In fact, the more restrictive the allocation procedure, the greater the potential for selection bias. It was decided, in the context of a recent clinical trial comparing two dosing schedules of paclitaxel and carboplatin for advanced stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer, that the randomized block procedure could not simultaneously protect sufficiently against both selection and chronological bias. In this paper we detail our development of the maximal procedure. The maximal procedure takes as input the extent of chronological bias allowed by the randomized block procedure, then matches it, but does so with fewer restrictions. This feature makes the maximal procedure more resistant to selection bias than the randomized block procedure is.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗