European Journal of Cancer: Highlights of Issue 38:08

Ultrasonography - time to review the evidence?

Ultrasonography as an adjunct to mammography- lack of evidence-based support

In a systematic review of publications in MEDLINE and EMBASE between 1990-2000, Flobbe and colleagues have reviewed the evidence for the use of ultrasonography (US) as an adjunct to mammography in the detection of breast cancer and to identify clinical indications. Studies were selected if they provided estimates on sensitivity and specificity for both mammography and US, either reported or calculable. Papers were written in English, French, German, Italian or Dutch with pathology data, where possible, preferably from histological needle biopsy or surgery, or follow-up of 1 year or more of patients with negative imaging results. Their review suggested that there was little evidence-based support for the use of US and no clinical indications could be defined. The authors state that the heterogeneity in the diagnostic performance observed in the studies they reviewed may be explained by the methods of patient selection and the interpretation of the US data as well as their poor quality.

Treatment of childhood brain tumours- successes, difficulties and frustrations.

Treatment advances for childhood brain tumours, including medulloblastoma, have lagged behind those for other paediatric cancers despite the efforts of collaborative groups such as the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP), the German/Austrian Group (GPOG) the Childhood Cancer Study Group (CCSG), Paediatric Oncology Group (POG) and Childrens Oncology Group (COG) in North America. For most tumour types, irradiation is still considered to be by far the most active ‘single agent’ but it damages the developing brain to an unacceptable degree, especially in young children. In this issue Dr. Eric Bouffet-Head of the Neurooncology Unit at the hospital for Sick Children in Toronto- summarises the current successes and frustrations of working with this ‘difficult’ group of patients and provides some pointers for the future. A sister-article, in which Dr. Richard Gilbertson of St. Jude Hospital, Memphis, USA, discusses current advances in the basic science of paediatric brain tumours, appeared in issue 38.05.

Does the methodology adapted to evaluate research productivity affect the results?

In this issue Ugolini and colleagues have compared two different methods to evaluate research productivity. They compared data on a number of factors including the number of published papers for each country, the ratio between the number of occurrences of papers and the population of the country and gross domestic product and the mean Impact Factors (IFs). Although several of these parameters showed no important changes, the mean IF varied between the two different methods for some countries. The authors urge that care in the interpretation of such bibliometric results should therefore be exercised and ask is one method sufficient?

Back . . .