EVIDENCE-BASED ONCOLOGY Evidence profiles for lung cancer: Benefit/harms data based on the totality of randomized evidence Heloisa P. Soares * , Ambuj Kumar, Benjamin Djulbegovic Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute at the University of South Florida, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA Introduction In this issue, we present evidence profiles based on the totality of the randomised evidence from two systematic reviews (SRs) in the field of lung cancer that are relevant to clinicians. Reliable data on benefits and harms are essential for making informed decisions in management of cancer patients. This includes identifying gaps in our knowledge i.e. knowing what we do and what we do not know regarding benefits and harms of interventions that are available to us. The rationale for the development of these evidence profiles is explained in detail in the editorial by Djulbegovic et al. that was published in the volume 32 issue 6 of this journal. To produce the three evidence profiles from 2 SRs listed below, more than 30 titles of SR and meta-analysis that have been published in the last 3 years in the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were initially screened. The ones, which were of high quality and most relevant to clinicians, were selected for this issue. However, evidence without context can only help us up to the point. Dr. Tanvetyanon and Dr. Bepler, two lung cancer experts, provided necessary context within which evidence presented in the profiles should be understood. In their com- mentary, they discuss the practical dilemmas related to decision of the optimal timing of administering radiotherapy to patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer; they further commented on our status of knowledge about various che- motherapy regimens that are available in treatment of advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. They con- cluded that the best evidence to date shows that available therapies will not dramatically change the outcomes of patients with lung cancer advocating ‘‘abandoning traditional approach of random combination of therapeutic agents’’ and need to intensify clinical testing of new agents whose value is yet to be proven. We hope that evidence profiles pre- sented here will be useful not only to clinicians but to future researchers as the background against which new clinical studies should be designed. 0305-7372/$ - see front matter  c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2006.07.011 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: soareshp@moffitt.usf.edu (H.P. Soares). Cancer Treatment Reviews (2006) 32, 652– 655 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/ctrv