Conference Paper
Critical Analysis of Electromagnetic Hyperthermia Randomized Trials: Dubious Effect and Multiple Biases
Table 16
Summarized biases of positive randomized clinical trials on hyperthermia.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes: 1—data on groups size differ between sources; 2—combination of some trials with different design; 3—negative data were not analyzed; 4—TD 24/27 Gy; 5—overall survival by groups is absent; 6—experimental design (randomization of tumors instead of patients); 7—incorrect survival analysis; 8—median age and TD RT differ >10%; 9—preselection of thermosensitive patients; 10—tumor size analysis missed; 11—inadequate analysis of efficacy, ignorance of bad survival; 12—TD RT 67 Gy, TD to tumor mass <60 Gy; 13—temperature analysis is absent and safety data are hidden; 14—combination of two studies with very different protocols; 15—impact of temperature, tumor volume, and protocol are not analysed; 16—TD to tumor mass 60.6 Gy; 17—preselection of aged patients (+10 years to expected age of first diagnosis); 18—base treatment in the control group is twice weaker compared to the study group; 19—all the parameters affecting the result are distorted in favor of hyperthermia group (+90%); 20—masking of systematic distortion, inadequate toxicity evaluation. |