The randomized clinical trial (RCT) in oncology has evolved since its widespread adoption in the 1970s. In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the use of putative surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), and marginal effect sizes. OBJECTIVE To describe contemporary trends in oncology RCTs and compare these findings with earlier eras of RCT design and output. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy RCTs in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer published in 7 major journals between 2010 and 2020. This strategy replicates prior work and allows for comparison of trends with RCTs published between 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Data on RCT design, funding, results, and reporting were extracted from the published RCT report. Findings from the current period (2010-2020) were compared with data from RCTs published from 1995 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to analyze temporal trends. RESULTS The cohort included 298 RCTs (132 [44%] breast, 111 [37%] non-small cell lung cancer, 55 [19%] colorectal cancer). Experimental treatment included molecular inhibitor (171 of 298 [57%]), cytotoxic (83 of 298 [28%]), hormone (15 of 298 [5%]), and immune (24 of 298 [8%]) therapies. Sixty-nine percent (206 of 298) of RCTs were of palliative intent. The most common primary end point is now PFS; this has increased substantially over time (from 0% [0 of 167] to 18% [25 of 137] to 42% [125 of 298]; P < .001). Of 298 RCTs, 265 (89%) are now funded by industry (previously 95 of 167 [57%] and 107 of 137 [78%]; P < .001).Fifty-eight percent (173 of 298) of trials met their primary end point. Among positive trials, median improvement in overall survival and PFS was 3.4 and 2.9 months, respectively. More than one-third (117 of 298 [39%]) of reports used a professional medical writer; this increased substantially during the study period (from 3 of 27 [11%] in 2010 to 12 of 18 [67%] in 2020; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests that contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate end points and are almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The increasing role of medical writers warrants attention. To demonstrate that new cancer treatments are high value, the oncology community needs to consider the extent to which study end points and target effect size provide meaningful benefit to patients.

No abstract

This paper describes a research project that had two goals: (1) to design and develop a tool with which to investigate pupils' images of mathematicians; and (2) to use the device to compare those images held by lower secondary pupils (ages 12-13) in five countries. We report that with small cultural differences certain stereotypical images of mathematicians are common to pupils in all of these countries and these images indicate that for pupils of this age mathematicians and the work that they do are, for all practical purposes, invisible.

Nelipepimut-S (formerly known as E75) is an immunogenic peptide from the HER2 protein that is highly expressed in breast cancer. The NeuVax™ (Galena, OR, USA) vaccine, nelipepimut-S plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, is designed for the prevention of clinical recurrences in high risk, disease-free breast cancer patients. Although cancer vaccines such as NeuVax represent promising approaches to cancer immunotherapy, much remains to be elucidated regarding their mechanisms of action: particularly given that multiple cancer vaccine trials have failed to demonstrate a correlation between immunologic data and clinical outcome. Here, we briefly discuss our clinical trial experience with NeuVax focusing on immunologic response data and its implication on how the immune system may be affected by this peptide vaccine. Most importantly, we demonstrate the potential capability of certain immunologic assays to predict clinical benefit in our trials.

Poster sessions are widely used as a medium for the communication of results by professionals at conferences and by students to their peers. The authors have introduced poster sessions into undergraduate mathematical modelling courses. This has given our students an interesting and challenging task and it has caused us to devise a scheme for the assessment of posters.This paper surveys the use of poster sessions with undergraduates, outlines the rationale for using posters with mathematics students, describes our experiences and proposes criteria to use in the assessment of student posters.