Search

Background: Clinical staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) helps determine the prognosis and treatment of patients; few data exist on the accuracy of clinical staging and the impact on treatment and survival of patients. We assessed whether participant or trial characteristics were associated with clinical staging accuracy as well as impact on survival., Methods: We used individual participant data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), supplied for a meta-analysis of preoperative chemotherapy (± radiotherapy) vs surgery alone (± radiotherapy) in NSCLC. We assessed agreement between clinical TNM (cTNM) stage at randomization and pathologic TNM (pTNM) stage, for participants in the control group., Results: Results are based on 698 patients who received surgery alone (± radiotherapy) with data for cTNM and pTNM stage. Forty-six percent of cases were cTNM stage I, 23% were cTNM stage II, and 31% were cTNM stage IIIa. cTNM stage disagreed with pTNM stage in 48% of cases, with 34% clinically understaged and 14% clinically overstaged. Agreement was not associated with age (P = .12), sex (P = .62), histology (P = .82), staging method (P = .32), or year of randomization (P = .98). Poorer survival in understaged patients was explained by the underlying pTNM stage. Clinical staging failed to detect T4 disease in 10% of cases and misclassified nodal disease in 38%., Conclusions: This study demonstrates suboptimal agreement between clinical and pathologic staging. Discrepancies between clinical and pathologic T and N staging could have led to different treatment decisions in 10% and 38% of cases, respectively. There is therefore a need for further research into improving staging accuracy for patients with stage I-IIIa NSCLC., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Our prior Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate systematic reviews showed improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer when abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone (AAP) or docetaxel (Doc), but not zoledronic acid (ZA), were added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Trial evidence also suggests a benefit of combining celecoxib (Cel) with ZA and ADT. To establish the optimal treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out based on aggregate data (AD) from all available studies., Methods: Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival data from completed Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate reviews of Doc, ZA and AAP and from recent trials of ZA and Cel contributed to this comprehensive AD-NMA. The primary outcome was OS. Correlations between treatment comparisons within one multi-arm, multi-stage trial were estimated from control-arm event counts. Network consistency and a common heterogeneity variance were assumed., Results: We identified 10 completed trials which had closed to recruitment, and one trial in which recruitment was ongoing, as eligible for inclusion. Results are based on six trials including 6204 men (97% of men randomised in all completed trials). Network estimates of effects on OS were consistent with reported comparisons with ADT alone for AAP [hazard ration (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.71], Doc (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87), ZA + Cel (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.97), ZA + Doc (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94), Cel (HR = 0.94 95% CI 0.75-1.17) and ZA (HR = 0.90 95% CI 0.79-1.03). The effect of ZA + Cel is consistent with the additive effects of the individual treatments. Results suggest that AAP has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment both for OS (94% probability) and failure-free survival (100% probability). Doc was the second-best treatment of OS (35% probability)., Conclusions: Uniquely, we have included all available results and appropriately accounted for inclusion of multi-arm, multi-stage trials in this AD-NMA. Our results support the use of AAP or Doc with ADT in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. AAP appears to be the most effective treatment, but it is not clear to what extent and whether this is due to a true increased benefit with AAP or the variable features of the individual trials. To fully account for patient variability across trials, changes in prognosis or treatment effects over time and the potential impact of treatment on progression, a network meta-analysis based on individual participant data is in development.

Objectives: To demonstrate how individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses have impacted directly on the design and conduct of trials and highlight other advantages IPD might offer., Study Design and Setting: Potential examples of the impact of IPD meta-analyses on trials were identified at an international workshop, attended by individuals with experience in the conduct of IPD meta-analyses and knowledge of trials in their respective clinical areas. Experts in the field who did not attend were asked to provide any further examples. We then examined relevant trial protocols, publications, and Web sites to verify the impacts of the IPD meta-analyses. A subgroup of workshop attendees sought further examples and identified other aspects of trial design and conduct that may inform IPD meta-analyses., Results: We identified 52 examples of IPD meta-analyses thought to have had a direct impact on the design or conduct of trials. After screening relevant trial protocols and publications, we identified 28 instances where IPD meta-analyses had clearly impacted on trials. They have influenced the selection of comparators and participants, sample size calculations, analysis and interpretation of subsequent trials, and the conduct and analysis of ongoing trials, sometimes in ways that would not possible with systematic reviews of aggregate data. We identified additional potential ways that IPD meta-analyses could be used to influence trials., Conclusions: IPD meta-analysis could be better used to inform the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of trials., (Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Guidance concerning tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for patients with wild type epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after first-line treatment is unclear. We assessed the effect of TKIs as second-line therapy and maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy in two systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on patients without EGFR mutations. Systematic searches were completed and data extracted from eligible randomized controlled trials. Three analytical approaches were used to maximize available data. Fourteen trials of second-line treatment (4388 patients) were included. Results showed the effect of TKIs on progression-free survival (PFS) depended on EGFR status (interaction hazard ratio [HR], 2.69; P = .004). Chemotherapy benefited patients with wild type EGFR (HR, 1.31; P < .0001), TKIs benefited patients with mutations (HR, 0.34; P = .0002). Based on 12 trials (85% of randomized patients) the benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .014). Six trials of maintenance therapy (2697 patients) were included. Results showed that although the effect of TKIs on PFS depended on EGFR status (interaction HR, 3.58; P < .0001), all benefited from TKIs (wild type EGFR: HR, 0.82; P = .01; mutated EGFR: HR, 0.24; P < .0001). There was a suggestion that benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .11). Chemotherapy should be standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and wild type EGFR. TKIs might be unsuitable for unselected patients. TKIs appear to benefit all patients compared with no active treatment as maintenance treatment, however, direct comparisons with chemotherapy are needed., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in operable non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook two comprehensive systematic reviews and meta-analyses to establish the effects of adding adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery, or to surgery plus radiotherapy., Methods: We included randomised trials, not confounded by additional therapeutic differences between the two groups and that started randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1965, which compared surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone, or surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy. Updated individual patient data were collected, checked, and included in meta-analyses stratified by trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death by any cause. All analyses were by intention to treat., Findings: The first meta-analysis of surgery plus chemotherapy versus surgery alone was based on 34 trial comparisons and 8447 patients (3323 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.92, p<0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% (95% CI 3-6) at 5 years (from 60% to 64%). The second meta-analysis of surgery plus radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy was based on 13 trial comparisons and 2660 patients (1909 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.97, p=0.009), representing an absolute improvement in survival of 4% (95% CI 1-8) at 5 years (from 29% to 33%). In both meta-analyses we noted little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics, or patient subgroup., Interpretation: The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for patients with operable non-small-cell lung cancer improves survival, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was adjuvant to surgery alone or adjuvant to surgery plus radiotherapy., Funding: UK Medical Research Council, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (AOM 05 209), Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Sanofi-Aventis., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical announcement recommended i.p. therapy for women with optimally debulked ovarian cancer. Its basis was a summary of eight randomised controlled trials and two systematic reviews, which appear to indicate benefit of i.p. therapy. However, the systematic reviews that inform the recommendations have been inappropriately presented and interpreted. The systematic reviews inappropriately pooled results from 'confounded' trials in which different drugs and different doses of drugs were given in the control and i.p. treatment arms. Therefore, it is not possible to assess which component of treatment is responsible for improving outcome. In addition, none of the trials use a control arm of the internationally accepted standard of care. Using just the unconfounded trials, indirect comparisons show that the magnitude of benefit observed when i.p. regimens are compared with older i.v. regimens [hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006] is smaller than the magnitude of benefit achieved with modern day standard of i.v. treatment compared with the same i.v. regimen used as control in the unconfounded i.p. trials (HR for OS 0.68; 95% CI 0.58-0.80, P < 0.001). A further difficulty is that the reviews cannot recommend an i.p. regimen for standard use. Drug-related toxicity and catheter complications that occur with i.p. therapy are considerable. The NCI recommendations have major implications for the treatment of women with ovarian cancer and for the next generation of clinical trials. We do not believe that the body of evidence currently available supports the recommendation that i.p. therapy should form part of routine care. The choice of treatment of women with newly diagnosed, optimally debulked, ovarian cancer, where therapy has the best chance of influencing OS, is too important to be left with this uncertainty. A clinical trial that investigates a practical and acceptable regimen which gives some or all chemotherapy by the i.p. route and compares this with standard i.v. chemotherapy should be a priority for those who wish to promote its use.

Background: The effectiveness of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer has remained unclear despite the conduct of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to assess the effectiveness of preoperative chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. This involved identifying eligible RCTs and extracting aggregate data from the abstracts or reports of these RCTs. Hazard ratios were calculated from these published summary statistics and then combined to give pooled estimates of treatment efficacy., Results: Twelve eligible RCTs were identified, from which data from seven RCTs, including 988 patients (75% of eligible patients), could be combined in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Preoperative chemotherapy improved survival with a hazard ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.97; p = 0.02). This is equivalent to an absolute benefit of 6%, increasing overall survival across all stages of disease from 14% to 20% at 5 years. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity., Conclusions: This analysis shows a significant benefit of preoperative chemotherapy and is currently the best estimate of the effectiveness of this therapy, but this is based on a small number of trials and patients. This current analysis was unable to address important questions such as whether particular types of patients may benefit more or less from preoperative chemotherapy or whether the early stopping of a number of included RCTs impacted on the results. To assess this, an individual patient data meta-analysis is required.