The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) Report on Cancer Chemotherapy - Project Objectives, the Working Process, Key Definitions and General Aspects on Cancer Trial Methodology and Interpretation

References

• Medical Research Council. Sjukvärdens prioriterings- och rationaliseringsinstitut. Chemotherapy in cancer. In: Glimelius B, Hafström Lo, eds. Consensus conference. Stock-holm 1990, pp 146. (in Swedish)
   Google Scholar
• Glimelius B, Brorsson B. Chemotherapy. Changed practice due to new research - not a consequence of a consensus statement. Läkartidningen 1993: 1937–41. (in Swedish)
   Google Scholar
• Gunnars B, Nygren P, Glimelius B. Assessment of quality of life during chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 175–84.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson G. Economic aspects of chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 412–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of published evidence: Miracles or minefields. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 703–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haward RA. Preparing guidelines and documented clinical policies. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 1073–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman C. Literature searching and evidence interpretation for assessing health care practices. Swedish Council on Tech-nology Assessment in Health Care. Norstedts, Stockholm 1993, pp 81.
   Google Scholar
• Glimelius B, Bergh J, Brandt L, et al. The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU) systemic overview of chemotherapy effects in some major tumour types. Summary and conclusions. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 135–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragnhammar P, Brorsson B, Nygren P, Glimelius B. A prospective study of the use of chemotherapy in Sweden and assessment of the use in relation to scientific evidence. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 391–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desch CE, Benson AB III, Smith TJ, et al. Recommended colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1312–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Behhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 536–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villar J, Carroli G, Belizán JM. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet 1995; 345: 772–6.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhauer EA. Phase I and II trials of novel anti-cancer agents: Endpoints, efficacy and existentialism. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 1047–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonkin K, Tritchler D, Tannock I. Criteria of tumour re-sponse used in clinical trials of chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1985; 3: 870–5.
   Google Scholar
• Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47: 207–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Society of Clinical Oncology. New international unidimensional response criteria for solid tumours: simpler and standardised. 35th annual meeting; special session 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Piedbois P. On the relationship between response to treatment and survival time. Stat Med 1996; 15: 2797–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyse M, Thirion P, Carlson RW, et al. Relation between tumour response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2000; 356: 373–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Constenla DO, Hill ME, A'Hern RP, et al. Chemotherapy for symptom control in recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 445–9.
   Google Scholar
• Ragnhammar P, Hafström Lo, Nygren P, Glimelius B. A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 282–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Permert J, Hafström Lo, Nygren P, Glimelius B. A systematic overview of chemotherapy effects in pancreatic cancer. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 361–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Society of Clinical Oncology. Outcome for technol-ogy assessments and guideline development. www.asco.org/ prof/pp/html/moutcome3.htm 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Gwyther S, Bolis G, Gore M, et al. Experience with indepen-dent radiological review during a topotecan trial in ovarian cancer. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 463–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staquet M, Dalesio O. Designs for phase III trials. In: Buyse ME, Staquet M, Sylvester RJ, eds. Cancer clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 261–75.
   Google Scholar
• Sprangers M, Sneeuw KC. Are health care providers ade-quate raters of patients' quality of life - perhaps more than we think? Acta Oncol 2000; 39: 5–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsson B. Problems relating to difficult medical areas, eg cancer and AIDS drugs; Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation of
   Google Scholar