What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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.

Aspirin and cancer: has aspirin been overlooked as an adjuvant therapy?

Aspirin inhibits the enzyme cyclooxygenase (Cox), and there is a significant body of epidemiological evidence demonstrating that regular aspirin use is associated with a decreased incidence of developing cancer. Interest focussed on selective Cox-2 inhibitors both as cancer prevention agents and as therapeutic agents in patients with proven malignancy until concerns were raised about their toxicity profile. Aspirin has several additional mechanisms of action that may contribute to its anti-cancer effect. It also influences cellular processes such as apoptosis and angiogenesis that are crucial for the development and growth of malignancies. Evidence suggests that these effects can occur through Cox-independent pathways questioning the rationale of focussing on Cox-2 inhibition alone as an anti-cancer strategy. Randomised studies with aspirin primarily designed to prevent cardiovascular disease have demonstrated a reduction in cancer deaths with long-term follow-up. Concerns about toxicity, particularly serious haemorrhage, have limited the use of aspirin as a cancer prevention agent, but recent epidemiological evidence demonstrating regular aspirin use after a diagnosis of cancer improves outcomes suggests that it may have a role in the adjuvant setting where the risk:benefit ratio will be different.

Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without postoperative radiotherapy, in operable non-small-cell lung cancer: two meta-analyses of individual patient data.

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.

Why i.p. therapy cannot yet be considered as a standard of care for the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer: a systematic review.

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.

Chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of pre-operative chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis were therefore undertaken to evaluate the available evidence from randomised trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of pre-operative chemotherapy on survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. If adequate data are available, to investigate whether or not pre-defined patient subgroups benefit more or less from pre-operative chemotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were supplemented by information from trial registers and by handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with relevant trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were eligible for inclusion provided the patients had been randomised between chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone and that the method of randomisation precluded prior knowledge of the treatment to be assigned. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on aggregate data extracted from trial publications was carried out to assess the effectiveness of pre-operative chemotherapy in NSCLC. This involved identifying eligible RCTs and extracting aggregate data from the abstracts or reports of these RCTs. Hazard ratios were calculated from published summary statistics and then combined to give pooled estimates of treatment efficacy. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve eligible RCTs were identified. Data were available from seven RCTs including 988 patients (75% of eligible patients). Pre-operative chemotherapy increased survival with a hazard ratio of 0.82 (95%CI 0.69-0.97) P = 0.022. 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 (P = 0.980, I(2 )= 0). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows a significant increase in survival attributable to pre-operative chemotherapy. This is currently the best estimate of the effectiveness of this therapy, but is based on a small number of trials and patients. This analysis was unable to address important questions such as whether particular types of patients may benefit more or less from pre-operative chemotherapy or whether the early stopping of a number of included RCTs impacted on the results. These issues may be addressed by an ongoing individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis.