You must log in or register to comment.

TheGuvnor247 OP t1_izgvuhp wrote

This is the key take away from all of this: “Due to the small number of subjects in both studies, it is impossible to accurately estimate the magnitude of the beneficial effect, but the effects are statistically significant, meaning that they are not accidental.”

Statistically significant is certainly a positive.


olddoc1 t1_izgwmim wrote

No. Statistical significance does not confirm the results are not accidental. Imagine getting 100 people to flip a coin 5 times. There's a good chance that one of them would get heads 5 times in a row. That may be statistically significant but it is also accidental.


chasrmartin t1_izh8ler wrote

“Statistically significant” means “the results are hard to explain as random.” Scientists often forget that not everyone is mathematically sophisticated; science journalists often went into science journalism because they think science is cool but long division made then have panic attacks.


SteveFrench1234 t1_izi0fml wrote

No, scientists don't forget not everyone is mathematically sophisticated. They just don't write their articles for the mathematically UN-sophisticated.


farrowsharrows t1_izgz0zz wrote

I don't think that is a good example. I am not saying you are entirely wrong but in your example of flipping coins there is nothing worth doing more research on. The authors say statistically significant indicating it needs more research. They have targeted cheap drugs to perform a function they know has tertiary effects on cancer and in two studies the similar outcomes occur at a rate that is significantly significant. And just to define it for you. Statistical significance helps quantify whether a result is likely due to chance or to some factor of interest,” says Redman.


olddoc1 t1_izh0jqj wrote

I like your last sentence. I'm not too interested in a study of 18 people with a p=0.05 result. A study of 200 people with p<.001 gets my attention.


SocialMediaDystopian t1_izhjehr wrote

That particular example would not be statistically significant though- precisely because there's a decent enough chance of it happening randomly


doublethinkingit t1_izhpd8v wrote

What’s your null hypothesis in this example? Statistically significant means the probability of getting a more extreme result when the null hypothesis is true is less than the chosen value of alpha (typical 0.05 is selected for alpha). In the case of this article, statistical significance means that if the two populations (treated and untreated) respond in the same way (I.e., no impact of the drugs) the probability of the observed differences in the sample (or more extreme - greater differential with few secondary cancers in the treatment group) is less than alpha. Sample size is also accounted for in the statistical test. All else being equal you need a larger difference between smaller sample size values to be able to conclude statistically significant difference.


Hrambert t1_izhtoww wrote

Statistical significance means "That's odd. Maybe e should get some funding to start a bigger study because we might have found something"


TheGuvnor247 OP t1_izgvkfw wrote

Full Transcript Below:

Darlin and Etopan appear to cut the chances of cancer returning elsewhere in body by reducing inflammation and stress, according to peer-reviewed research


Today, 12:26 pm

Taking two common drugs just before cancer operations may significantly reduce the chance of a secondary tumor, new Israeli research suggests.

Scientists from Tel Aviv University gave 18 colon cancer patients a course of Darlin and Etopan just before and after the surgical removal of their tumor, and gave placebos to another 18 patients.

Propranolol, marketed as Darlin, blocks adrenaline and is normally used to lower blood pressure or reduce anxiety. Etodolac, marketed as Etopan, is used to prevent pain and inflammation.

The groups were randomly allocated, and doctors didn’t know which patients received the real drugs. Now, five years later, the scientists have found out how many patients from each group developed secondary tumors.

Half of the placebo group — nine out of 18 — had a secondary tumor, while only two of the 18 who received the drugs did. The team behind the peer-reviewed study acknowledges that the cohort of patients was small, and is initiating a larger study.

“The results indicate that by reducing stress and inflammation five days before surgery and continuing the treatment for one to two weeks afterward, we can reduce the chances of cancer occurring again,” Prof. Shamgar Ben-Eliyahu of Tel Aviv University’s neuroscience school, who led the study, told The Times of Israel.

He said that the research is independent of any drug company, and aims specifically at identifying a cheap, non-patented and easily accessible way to reduce the chance of secondary cancer.

“One should bear in mind that the pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentive to support such studies,” Ben-Eliyahu said. “The medicines are not patented; they are safe, cheap, and administered in a short treatment lasting just a few days. The drug companies look for patents on expensive drugs, and prefer that the patient be dependent on the drug for the rest of their life.”

Prof. Shamgar Ben-Eliyahu of Tel Aviv University (courtesy of Tel Aviv University)

The new study, which was published in the European Journal of Surgical Oncology, followed several experiments with rats and mice. In these, the two drugs showed protective benefits from secondary — or metastatic — cancer. There was also an earlier human study, peer-reviewed and published in 2017, indicating that the drugs strengthen the biomarkers in the body which help prevent secondary tumors.

Ben-Eliyahu explained his hypothesis on how the drugs are effective, saying: “It’s widely accepted that inflammation aggravates cancer, so part of the benefit here is reducing inflammation. Meanwhile, there is growing research suggesting that stress can help the progression of cancer and metastases; hence the benefit of the medication that blocks adrenaline.

“It’s widely accepted that inflammation aggravates cancer, and regarding stress, there is a growing amount of research suggesting that it helps cancer progress and helps secondary tumors,” said Ben-Eliyahu.

He commented: “Although at five years after the operation, the statistical significance is clear, we need to conduct larger clinical studies. Our treatment reduced markers of metastasis in the tumor tissue, and reduced the chances of cancer recurrence. This is very promising research, which can save lives of cancer patients.”

“This is a short, cheap drug treatment with no significant side effects. We deliberately sought the safest and cheapest drugs capable of lowering the body’s stress-inflammatory response to surgery, in order to save lives. It sounds too good to be true, but similar results in breast cancer tissue were obtained in the study we conducted in 2017.

“Due to the small number of subjects in both studies, it is impossible to accurately estimate the magnitude of the beneficial effect, but the effects are statistically significant, meaning that they are not accidental.”


[deleted] t1_izh2zp8 wrote

Doesn’t provide enough information, though the hypothesis of chronic inflammation promoting cancer has been widely accepted as a promising target for therapy. Without knowing how well the groups were matched its impossible to say anything about the validity of the results. Its also next to impossible to infer if this would work for different types of cancers


redditaccount71987 t1_izixsuv wrote

Cool In my case I followed all Dr advice and then they cancelled my post surgical followup at the Endos and then found what looks like a metastasis on imagery and then started tampering with things. It's good to see that they are working on cancer now hopefully Drs never cancel followups.


AutoModerator t1_izgvbis wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Ronbergs t1_izknpmk wrote

Stop mass murdering people you psychos.


alecmars7 t1_izhtf1o wrote

It took them 5 years to just read that printout of a CT scan. It’s also a cross section of a chest not the abdomen. “Ah yes I don’t see the colon cancer anymore! Eureka!”