Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Medicinal Chemistry
  4. Volume 32, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0929-8673
  • E-ISSN: 1875-533X

Abstract

Prospective controlled trials of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for cancers were evaluated. Post-hoc power was <0.80 in 30/46 trials and in 22/38 trials with positive results, indicating low quality in most trials. Unscientific endpoints, small sample sizes, and high dropout rates led to low post-hoc power that caused inter-trial heterogeneity and overestimated the therapeutic effect. The objective response rate was not a substitute for survival time for estimating the sample size and assessing the efficacy. The present data can interpret a paradox: HIFU is considered to have slighter cytotoxicity to non-cancer tissues and no radiation but is frequently combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in practice.

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673281773240104142757
2024-02-07
2025-03-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673281773240104142757
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. LuoJ. RenX. YuT. Efficacy of extracorporeal ultrasound-guided high intensity focused ultrasound: An evaluation based on controlled trials in China.Int. J. Radiat. Biol.201591648048510.3109/09553002.2015.102196225758333
     [Google Scholar]
  2. IzadifarZ. IzadifarZ. ChapmanD. BabynP. An introduction to high intensity focused ultrasound: Systematic review on principles, devices, and clinical applications.J. Clin. Med.20209246010.3390/jcm902046032046072
     [Google Scholar]
  3. FerilL.B. FernanR.L. TachibanaK. High-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of breast cancer.Curr. Med. Chem.202128255179518810.2174/092986732766620111114320633176628
     [Google Scholar]
  4. PracheeI. WuF. CranstonD. Oxford’s clinical experience in the development of high intensity focused ultrasound therapy.Int. J. Hyperthermia2021382818810.1080/02656736.2021.189931134420448
     [Google Scholar]
  5. OnwuegbuzieA.J. LeechN.L. Post hoc power: A concept whose time has come.Underst. Stat.20043420123010.1207/s15328031us0304_1
     [Google Scholar]
  6. YuenS.Y. PopeJ.E. Learning from past mistakes: Assessing trial quality, power and eligibility in non-renal systemic lupus erythematosus randomized controlled trials.Rheumatology20084791367137210.1093/rheumatology/ken23018577549
     [Google Scholar]
  7. KinneyA.R. EakmanA.M. GrahamJ.E. Novel effect size interpretation guidelines and an evaluation of statistical power in rehabilitation research.Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.2020101122219222610.1016/j.apmr.2020.02.01732272106
     [Google Scholar]
  8. ShiY.L. ZhaoJ. AiF.L. WangY.T. HuK.R. WangX.W. YangW.Y. WangJ.X. AiL.M. WanX. Evaluating the quality of case-control studies involving the association between tobacco exposure and diseases in a Chinese population based on the Newcastle-ottawa scale and post-hoc power.Biomed. Environ. Sci.202235986186610.3967/bes2022.11036190001
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BergA. LyonsN.B. BadamiA. ReynoldsJ. PizanoL. PustG.D. MeizosoJ. NamiasN. YehD.D. Statistical power of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery.J. Am. Coll. Surg.2023237573173610.1097/XCS.000000000000080037417653
     [Google Scholar]
  10. International Council for HarmonisationStatistical Principles for Clinical Trials.1998
     [Google Scholar]
  11. ZhangY. HedoR. RiveraA. RullR. RichardsonS. TuX.M. Post hoc power analysis: Is it an informative and meaningful analysis?Gen. Psychiatr.2019324e10006910.1136/gpsych‑2019‑10006931552383
     [Google Scholar]
  12. BakerD.H. VilidaiteG. LygoF.A. SmithA.K. FlackT.R. GouwsA.D. AndrewsT.J. Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience.Psychol. Methods202126329531410.1037/met000033732673043
     [Google Scholar]
  13. QuachN.E. YangK. ChenR. TuJ. XuM. TuX.M. ZhangX. Post-hoc power analysis: A conceptually valid approach for power based on observed study data.Gen. Psychiatr.2022354e10076410.1136/gpsych‑2022‑10076436189182
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ChenY. LuN. DeQ. ZhengJ. Changes and significances of serum FT3, rT3 and VEGF levels in patients with primary liver cancer treated with chemoembolization combined with microbubble contrast agent and high-intensity focused ultrasound.Linchuang Wuzhen Wuzi2022355515510.3969/j.issn.1002‑3429.2022.05.016
     [Google Scholar]
  15. YuT. WangG. HuK. MaP. BaiJ. WangZ. A microbubble agent improves the therapeutic efficiency of high intensity focused ultrasound: A rabbit kidney study.Urol. Res.2004321141910.1007/s00240‑003‑0362‑x14655029
     [Google Scholar]
  16. YuT. HuD. XuC. Microbubbles improve the ablation efficiency of extracorporeal high intensity focused ultrasound against kidney tissues.World J. Urol.200826663163610.1007/s00345‑008‑0290‑z18594828
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ZhangY. FowlkesB. Liposomes-based nanoplatform enlarges ultrasound-related diagnostic and therapeutic precision.Curr. Med. Chem.20222981331134110.2174/092986732866621080409262434348609
     [Google Scholar]
  18. ZengZ. LiuJ.B. PengC.Z. Phase-changeable nanoparticle-mediated energy conversion promotes highly efficient high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation.Curr. Med. Chem.20222981369137810.2174/092986732866621070808511034238143
     [Google Scholar]
  19. U.S. department of health and human services, food and drug administration, oncology center of excellence, center for drug evaluation and research, center for biologics evaluation and research. Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics, guidance for industry.2018
     [Google Scholar]
  20. LánczkyA. GyőrffyB. Web-based survival analysis tool tailored for medical research (KMplot): Development and implementation.J. Med. Internet Res.2021237e2763310.2196/2763334309564
     [Google Scholar]
  21. FewtrellM.S. KennedyK. SinghalA. MartinR.M. NessA. Hadders-AlgraM. KoletzkoB. LucasA. How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and prospective studies?Arch. Dis. Child.200893645846110.1136/adc.2007.12731618495909
     [Google Scholar]
  22. ZelleB.A. BhandariM. SanchezA.I. ProbstC. PapeH.C. Loss of follow-up in orthopaedic trauma: Is 80% follow-up still acceptable?J. Orthop. Trauma201327317718110.1097/BOT.0b013e31825cf36723449099
     [Google Scholar]
  23. DolemanB. WilliamsJ.P. LundJ. Why most published meta-analysis findings are false.Tech. Coloproctol.201923992592810.1007/s10151‑019‑02020‑y31240417
     [Google Scholar]
  24. StanleyT.D. DoucouliagosH. IoannidisJ.P.A. Beyond random effects: When small-study findings are more heterogeneous.Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci.20225410.1177/25152459221120427
     [Google Scholar]
  25. StanleyT.D. DoucouliagosH. IoannidisJ.P.A. Retrospective median power, false positive meta‐analysis and large‐scale replication.Res. Synth. Methods20221318810810.1002/jrsm.152934628722
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmc/10.2174/0109298673281773240104142757
Loading

Supplements

Supplementary material is available on the publisher’s website along with the published article.

file format download Download

  • Article Type:     Editorial
Keyword(s): cancer clinical trial; combination therapy; data quality; High-intensity focused ultrasound; overestimation; post-hoc power

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test