This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

George A. Omura, MD
School of Medicine The University of Alabama in Birmingham

JAMA. 1985;253(16):2363-2364.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

In regard to the report by Oye and Shapiro,¹ it is apparent that survival comparisons between responders and nonresponders in cancer clinical trials are misleading. Anderson et al² have made similar observations. However, I think further discussion is needed of that subset of patients who achieve a "complete" response, that is, currently available techniques fail to demonstrate persistent cancer. In virtually every tumor type in which complete response can be achieved in some fraction of treated patients, there is a dramatic improvement in survival for that fraction compared with partial responders or those with "stable" disease; moreover, cured patients are found within the subset of complete responders, but not elsewhere. Clinical trials should focus initially on maximizing the complete response rate rather than searching for a survival advantage for partial responses. The latter simply provide clues that may lead to regimens with better complete response . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?