Faculty Bibliography

[Bernard Fisher] had repeatedly declined requests for interviews over the last few weeks, saying he would save his account for the congressional hearing, to be conducted by Rep. John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Pete Stockton, with the Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, said the committee had received a letter from Fisher's attorney asking that he be excused for health reasons. -- Why did the National Cancer Institute wait until December 1992 to require independent monitoring boards for studies conducted under its auspices, 13 years after the National Institutes of Health made such a recommendation? Such boards, which monitor data and safety, are customary in many federally sponsored studies, including those of heart disease. Fisher's studies did not include one. [Dwight Kaufman] said in an interview over the weekend that no one at his institute seemed to know about the 1979 recommendation

Since [Roger Poisson] contributed to many of [Bernard Fisher]'s studies, providing 16 percent of the cases for the pivotal lumpectomy trial, the question of his selection as a participant in the trial is a matter of concern. Dr. Thomas Detre, senior vice chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh and head of the school's vast medical enterprise, said he did not know how Fisher chose Poisson or other doctors as principal investigators. National Cancer Institute officials say Fisher's problems probably resulted from a too rapid growth of his studies in size and number. But independent experts chosen by the institute as peer reviewers did not detect such problems. Several of Fisher's supporters suggested that the University of Pittsburgh and the National Cancer Institute did not provide Fisher with a large enough staff to deal with the studies. But Detre said he was not aware that Fisher had asked for a larger staff. In his reply to [Harold Varmus], Detre referred to money contributed since 1989 by ICI Pharmaceuticals Group, the manufacturer of the drug tamoxifen, which Fisher is testing for its ability to prevent breast cancer. The company, Detre wrote, has contributed $600,000 to the endowment for a Fisher chair, and a further $700,000 has come from other sources

The contributions made to the study of breast cancer by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project at the University of Pittsburgh are listed. The project's studies helped clarify what the location and size of the cancer and spread of tumor cells to the lymph nodes indicated about the prognosis

Bernard Fisher, the surgeon who was pivotal in changing the way breast cancer is treated, was ousted from his job at the University of Pittsburgh as head of a group of studies of breast and bowl cancer in a debacle over falsified data in tests. A Canadian researcher has admitted falsifying data submitted to Fisher, although Fisher himself is not under suspicion. Fisher, who will testify before Congress on the case in Apr 1994, is profiled

In an effort to assure the quality of crucial research projects, National Cancer Institute officials on Mar 29, 1994 took sweeping action intended to correct serious deficiencies of oversight in several large studies being coordinated by Dr Bernard Fisher at the University of Pittsburgh to determine new standards of care for cancer patients

The broad actions came a day after the cancer institute, citing a new discrepancy in a breast cancer study, asked the University of Pittsburgh to replace [Bernard Fisher] as principal investigator of an influential series of studies on breast and bowel cancer. The disciplinary action was demanded by cancer institute officials after their repeated criticism of Fisher for delays in detecting falsified data submitted by Dr. Roger Poisson at St. Luc Hospital in Montreal to the Pittsburgh center. The falsifications were first detected in 1990 and not reported to the cancer institute for several months. Although Fisher has submitted re-analyses of the findings excluding Poisson's data to the National Cancer Institute, officials there have criticized Fisher for not submitting a paper to The New England Journal of Medicine, which published the original reports in 1985 and 1989. Publication of the revised data is a standard way for correcting information in medicine

The National Cancer Institute, citing a new discrepancy in a breast cancer study, asked the University of Pittsburgh to replace Bernard Fisher as the principal investigator of an influential series of studies. A researcher from a Montreal hospital had submitted falsified data to the study

The demand for the resignation of the studies' coordinator, Dr. Bernard Fisher, followed the finding yesterday of a potentially serious discrepancy in data sent to Pittsburgh by a researcher at a second Montreal hospital, said Dr. Bruce Chabner, a top official of The National Cancer Institute, last night. Chabner said the institute discovered this irregularity while conducting a new investigation of the lumpectomy studies. The investigators found that Fisher's team had come across this discrepancy last September but had failed to follow up on it, thereby violating its own guidelines in conducting the breast cancer studies. The university is expected to comply by replacing Fisher with another senior researcher today , Chabner said. The federal officials say that the data discrepancy may not be significant but that Fisher's failure to make timely reports of the new problem was serious enough for discipline

The University of Pittsburgh has also reanalyzed its data -- excluding those from [Roger Poisson] -- and said that the study's original conclusion remains valid. The cancer institute has reviewed this reanalysis and so far found its methodology correct, but in a further effort to reassure the public, it will audit some raw data. [Bernard Fisher] submitted the report in January to The Journal of the National Cancer Institute without disclosing that statistics from Poisson were included. The editors accepted the paper on March 11 and learned of a possible problem later in the day as The Chicago Tribune prepared its article on the lumpectomy study. Also likely to prove awkward for the institute is an editorial in the same issue written by [Michael A. Friedman] and his colleagues at the cancer institute. The authors commented on Fisher's article without realizing that it included data from Poisson

Auditors will also check the original records at many of the 89 hospitals in the United States and Canada where 1,843 women took part in a surgical study that helped change the way breast cancer is treated by declaring that a partial mastectomy and radiation are just as effective as the more disfiguring full mastectomy. The University of Pittsburgh has also re-analyzed its data -- excluding those from [Roger Poisson] --and said that the study's original conclusion remains valid. The cancer institute has reviewed this re- analysis and so far found its methodology correct, but in a further effort to reassure the public will audit some raw data. The Pittsburgh study, published in 1985, found many women with early breast cancer can be treated with a partial mastectomy, which is also called a lumpectomy, together with radiation