Recently The New York Times reported the following:
‘Too Good to Be True’: A Chinese Study on Timing Cancer
Therapy Is Retracted (1/2)
In a notice flagging a series of problems with a clinical
trial, the journal Nature Medicine said its editors “no longer have confidence
in the integrity of the results.”
By Rebecca Robbins - Rebecca Robbins is a Times reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry. She has been reporting on health and medicine since 2015.
June 25, 2026
Early this year, a medical journal article caught the
attention of cancer patients and doctors worldwide because of its extraordinary
conclusion. Simply changing the time of day that immunotherapy was administered
appeared to produce a stunning benefit for lung cancer patients.
Those who received IV infusions in the morning had their cancer kept at bay for twice as long as those who got it in the afternoon, according to the results from a clinical trial in China and published in the journal Nature Medicine in February. The study also reported that the patients lived nearly twice as long.
Several oncologists said that in recent months they and their hospitals had received a flurry of calls from patients inquiring about switching to morning infusions.
But on Wednesday, Nature Medicine retracted the study, citing a list of inconsistencies and irregularities in the trial’s design and results.
“It was too good to be true,” said Dr. Toni Choueiri, an oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston who helped conduct the post-publication review that led to the retraction.
Among the issues that the journal cited in its retraction notice: Records that were supposed to be locked before the study started were changed midway through. There were discrepancies between the Chinese version of the study’s plan and the translated version. Every patient remained treated and tracked in the study’s first year, and no one dropped out because of side effects — highly unusual in an oncology study. And unusual patterns were found in the timing of follow-up scans.
“Due to the amount and nature of the problems identified, the editors no longer have confidence in the integrity of the results,” the journal said.
Most of the study’s 28 authors were in China, with several collaborators in Europe. The study was funded by the Chinese government.
China has been pumping money into its hospitals and drug companies, fueling a surge of patents, publications and new clinical trials. In just a few years, the country has rapidly transformed into a powerhouse in drug development, a shift that some U.S. officials, doctors and executives see as a threat to longstanding American dominance in the field.
China’s critics often question the reliability of its biomedical research. Experts said that, similar to studies in the United States, China’s research output spans a wide range in quality: Some Chinese scientists run their studies at the most meticulous standards. Others were said to cut corners.
(to be continued)
Translation
「好得令人難以置信」：一項關於癌症治療時間的中國研究被撤稿（1/2）
《自然醫學》雜誌在聲明中指出一項臨床試驗存在一系列問題，並表示其編輯「不再相信該研究結果的可靠性」
今年年初，一篇醫學期刊文章因其非凡的結論而引起了全球癌症患者和醫生的注意。文章指出，光是改變免疫療法的給藥時間，就能為肺癌患者帶來驚人的益處。
根據2月發表在《自然醫學》雜誌上的一項中國臨床試驗的結果，上午接受靜脈輸液的患者，其控制癌症的時間是下午接受輸液患者的兩倍。該研究還報告稱，上午接受輸液的患者存活期也延長了近一倍。
多位腫瘤科醫師表示，近幾個月來，他們和他們的醫院接到大量病患來電，詢問如何改為上午輸液。
但在周三，《自然醫學》雜誌撤回了這項研究，理由是試驗設計和結果有一系列不一致和不規範之處。
波士頓丹娜-法伯癌症研究所 的腫瘤科醫生Toni Choueiri博士說道:「這簡直好得令人難以置信」。她參與了協助進行發表後的審查，並最終導致撤稿的人仕。
該期刊在撤稿聲明中列舉的問題包括：本應在研究開始前鎖定的記錄在研究進行到一半時被更改；研究方案的中文版和翻譯版之間存在差異；所有患者在研究的第一年都接受了治療和隨訪，而且沒有人因副作用而退出 - 這在腫瘤學研究中極為罕見；此外，隨訪掃描的時間安排也存在異常模式。
期刊表示:「鑑於發現的問題數量之多、性質之複雜，編輯們對研究結果的可靠性已不再有信心」。
這項研究的28位作者大多來自中國，另有幾位合作者在歐洲。該研究由中國政府資助。
中國的批評者經常質疑其生物醫學研究的可靠性。專家表示，與美國的研究類似，中國的研究成果品質參差不齊：一些中國科學家以極為嚴謹的標準進行研究，而另一些科學家則被指走捷徑。
（待續）
沒有留言:
張貼留言