Ovarian Cancer Canada names Dr. David Huntsman for inaugural research award.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Cancer Research: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Dr. Anil Potti, a researcher from Duke University, has voluntarily resigned nearly a year after the university began looking into the possibility that he may have 'padded' his resume, an accusation that appears to have some merit.
However, this is not the most devastating factor in this story. It also appears that the research completed in 2006 by the doctor and his collaborator, Dr. Joe Nevins - who is also the Director of the Center for Applied Genomics at Duke - was faulty. The findings have left cancer patients who participated in clinical trials based on this research wondering what happens now.
The Chronicle provides an insight into the magnitude and potential ripple effect of the flawed research completed by the two researchers: "The paper, titled “Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics,” was published in the journal Nature Medicine in October 2006. The paper seemed to help answer long-standing questions in oncology concerning how doctors should choose cancer treatments for their patients. It has since been cited by 334 other articles, according to Google Scholar."
The first inkling that something was not right with the research came to light in 2007 when three University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center biostatisticians found that the findings could not be replicated. Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes, biostatisticians at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, spent 1500 hours reviewing the findings of Dr. Anil Potti's and Dr. Joe Nevins' research and published their report in the November 2009 issue of the Annals of Applied Statistics recommending that all trials based on this research should be halted. Three clinical trials were officially - and finally - halted earlier this month (Feb 2012).
The paper has already been formally retracted by a leading cancer publication, The Journal of Clinical Oncology, and all research in which this paper has been cited is being reviewed.
It seems that all of the news on cancer research lately has been negative. But, as cancer survivors, all we can hope is that this example is an exception to the rule ... that the majority of the research is being checked and rechecked for flaws before the clinical trials commence. After all, it is not only us, but future generations, that are counting on these researchers to ensure that what they have 'discovered' is sound information based on their ability to cross all of their "t's" and dot all of their "i's". Someday their lives could be dependent on that reassurance too.
Based on information from:
The Herald-Sun
Science Blogs' Cancer Letter
Duke Chronicle
Until next time ......
~B-Optimistic~
However, this is not the most devastating factor in this story. It also appears that the research completed in 2006 by the doctor and his collaborator, Dr. Joe Nevins - who is also the Director of the Center for Applied Genomics at Duke - was faulty. The findings have left cancer patients who participated in clinical trials based on this research wondering what happens now.
The Chronicle provides an insight into the magnitude and potential ripple effect of the flawed research completed by the two researchers: "The paper, titled “Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics,” was published in the journal Nature Medicine in October 2006. The paper seemed to help answer long-standing questions in oncology concerning how doctors should choose cancer treatments for their patients. It has since been cited by 334 other articles, according to Google Scholar."
The first inkling that something was not right with the research came to light in 2007 when three University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center biostatisticians found that the findings could not be replicated. Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes, biostatisticians at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, spent 1500 hours reviewing the findings of Dr. Anil Potti's and Dr. Joe Nevins' research and published their report in the November 2009 issue of the Annals of Applied Statistics recommending that all trials based on this research should be halted. Three clinical trials were officially - and finally - halted earlier this month (Feb 2012).
The paper has already been formally retracted by a leading cancer publication, The Journal of Clinical Oncology, and all research in which this paper has been cited is being reviewed.
It seems that all of the news on cancer research lately has been negative. But, as cancer survivors, all we can hope is that this example is an exception to the rule ... that the majority of the research is being checked and rechecked for flaws before the clinical trials commence. After all, it is not only us, but future generations, that are counting on these researchers to ensure that what they have 'discovered' is sound information based on their ability to cross all of their "t's" and dot all of their "i's". Someday their lives could be dependent on that reassurance too.
Based on information from:
The Herald-Sun
Science Blogs' Cancer Letter
Duke Chronicle
Until next time ......
~B-Optimistic~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
