Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Treatment Time Impacts Overall Survival in Gastric Cancer

Prolonged radiation therapy treatment time (RTT) is associated with worse survival in several tumor types. This study investigated whether delays during adjuvant radiation therapy impact overall survival (OS) in gastric cancer. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with resected gastric cancer who received adjuvant radiation therapy with National Comprehensive Cancer Network--recommended doses (45 or 50.4 Gy) between 1998 and 2006. RTT was classified as standard (45 Gy: 33-36 days, 50.4 Gy: 38-41 days) or prolonged (45 Gy: >36 days, 50.4 Gy: >41 days). Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association between the following factors and OS: RTT, interval from surgery to radiation therapy initiation, interval from surgery to radiation therapy completion, radiation therapy dose, demographic/pathologic and operative factors, and other elements of adjuvant multimodality therapy. Of 1591 patients, RTT was delayed in 732 (46%). Factors associated with prolonged RTT were non-private health insurance (OR 1.3, P=.005) and treatment at non-academic facilities (OR 1.2, P=.045). Median OS and 5-year actuarial survival were significantly worse in patients with prolonged RTT compared with standard RTT (36 vs 51 months, P=.001; 39 vs 47%, P=.005); OS worsened with each cumulative week of delay (P<.0004). On multivariable analysis, prolonged RTT was associated with inferior OS (hazard ratio 1.2, P=.002); the intervals from surgery to radiation therapy initiation or completion were not. Prolonged RTT was particularly detrimental in patients with node positivity, inadequate nodal staging (<15 nodes examined), and those undergoing a cycle of chemotherapy before chemoradiation therapy. Delays during adjuvant radiation therapy appear to negatively impact survival in gastric cancer. Efforts to minimize cumulative interruptions to <7 days should be considered

Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be

Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be