Writing the Discussion Section
5- 7
AMG 706 provided direct evidence that the mechanism of tumor regression in A431 xenografts is the antiangiogenic effects of AMG 706. Increased endothelial cell apoptosis in association with decreased blood vessel area was the first event observed after administration of AMG 706. This was followed by significant increases in tumor cell apoptosis. The sequence of these observations is consistent with targeting of tumor-associated endothelial cells and blood vessels as a primary mechanism of the antitumor activity of AMG 706 in the model systems explored in this study. (From Polverino A et al. AMG 706, an oral, multikinase inhibitor that selectively targets vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and Kit receptors, potently inhibits angiogenesis and induces regression in tumor xenografts. Cancer Res 66:8715 – 8721, 2006.)
The following sections describe elements of the Discussion that are an extension of interpreting your findings.
Describing Your Study’s Relationship to Other Studies
An important component of the Discussion is a description of the most relevant studies that directly support your findings and the most relevant studies that disagree with your findings. For studies that disagree, you should include possible reasons why the studies disagree with yours. For example, perhaps you used a different technique, studied a different population or ethnic group, or had a larger sample and so detected effects too small to be seen in smaller studies. Discussing work by others that disagrees with yours is one of the hardest things to do in the Discussion. On the one hand, you want to be respectful and objective and give credit to those who published first because they may have laid the foundation for your work. On the other hand, you also must convince readers to accept your conclusions and must suggest plausible explanations for the discrepancy. Some authors try to avoid criticizing other studies by simply naming the studies or just stating the studies’ results without ex plaining how the results differ from the authors’ own. But then the readers must identify the discrepancies themselves, which can lead to misunderstanding. When explaining a discrepancy between your results and those previously published by another group, it is best to focus on a strength of your study rather than a weakness of theirs. In other words, instead of stating that the other study’s approach was inferior to yours, state that
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software