Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Implications of analysing time-to-event outcomes as binary in meta-analysis: empirical evidence from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes are frequently published within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). However, these outcomes are handled differently across meta-analyses. They can be analysed on the hazard ratio (HR) scale or can be dichotomized and analysed as binary outcomes using effect measures such as odds ratios (OR) or risk ratios (RR). We investigated the impact of reanalysing meta-analyses from the CDSR that used these different effect measures. METHODS: We extracted two types of meta-analysis data from the CDSR: either recorded in a binary form only ("binary"), or in binary form together with observed minus expected and variance statistics ("OEV"). We explored how results for time-to-event outcomes originally analysed as "binary" change when analysed using the complementary log-log (clog-log) link on a HR scale. For the data originally analysed as HRs ("OEV"), we compared these results to analysing them as binary on a HR scale using the clog-log link or using a logit link on an OR scale. RESULTS: The pooled HR estimates were closer to 1 than the OR estimates in the majority of meta-analyses. Important differences in between-study heterogeneity between the HR and OR analyses were also observed. These changes led to discrepant conclusions between the OR and HR scales in some meta-analyses. Situations under which the clog-log link performed better than logit link and vice versa were apparent, indicating that the correct choice of the method does matter. Differences between scales arise mainly when event probability is high and may occur via differences in between-study heterogeneity or via increased within-study standard error in the OR relative to the HR analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified that dichotomising time-to-event outcomes may be adequate for low event probabilities but not for high event probabilities. In meta-analyses where only binary data are available, the complementary log-log link may be a useful alternative when analysing time-to-event outcomes as binary, however the exact conditions need further exploration. These findings provide guidance on the appropriate methodology that should be used when conducting such meta-analyses.

A framework for prospective, adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of systematic reviews are planned retrospectively, once most eligible trials have completed and reported, and are based on aggregate data that can be extracted from publications. Prior knowledge of trial results can introduce bias into both review and meta-analysis methods, and the omission of unpublished data can lead to reporting biases. We present a collaborative framework for prospective, adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data to provide results that are less prone to bias. Also, with FAME, we monitor how evidence from trials is accumulating, to anticipate the earliest opportunity for a potentially definitive meta-analysis. METHODOLOGY: We developed and piloted FAME alongside 4 systematic reviews in prostate cancer, which allowed us to refine the key principles. These are to: (1) start the systematic review process early, while trials are ongoing or yet to report; (2) liaise with trial investigators to develop a detailed picture of all eligible trials; (3) prospectively assess the earliest possible timing for reliable meta-analysis based on the accumulating aggregate data; (4) develop and register (or publish) the systematic review protocol before trials produce results and seek appropriate aggregate data; (5) interpret meta-analysis results taking account of both available and unavailable data; and (6) assess the value of updating the systematic review and meta-analysis. These principles are illustrated via a hypothetical review and their application to 3 published systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: FAME can reduce the potential for bias, and produce more timely, thorough and reliable systematic reviews of aggregate data.

Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches. METHODS: We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75-1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI -2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I2=42%). INTERPRETATION: This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.

Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear when standard systematic reviews and meta-analyses that rely on published aggregate data (AD) can provide robust clinical conclusions. We aimed to compare the results from a large cohort of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data (IPD) with meta-analyses of published AD, to establish when the latter are most likely to be reliable and when the IPD approach might be required. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used 18 cancer systematic reviews that included IPD meta-analyses: all of those completed and published by the Meta-analysis Group of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit from 1991 to 2010. We extracted or estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and standard errors (SEs) for survival from trial reports and compared these with IPD equivalents at both the trial and meta-analysis level. We also extracted or estimated the number of events. We used paired t tests to assess whether HRs and SEs from published AD differed on average from those from IPD. We assessed agreement, and whether this was associated with trial or meta-analysis characteristics, using the approach of Bland and Altman. The 18 systematic reviews comprised 238 unique trials or trial comparisons, including 37,082 participants. A HR and SE could be generated for 127 trials, representing 53% of the trials and approximately 79% of eligible participants. On average, trial HRs derived from published AD were slightly more in favour of the research interventions than those from IPD (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.95, p = 0.007), but the limits of agreement show that for individual trials, the HRs could deviate substantially. These limits narrowed with an increasing number of participants (p < 0.001) or a greater number (p < 0.001) or proportion (p < 0.001) of events in the AD. On average, meta-analysis HRs from published AD slightly tended to favour the research interventions whether based on fixed-effect (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.97, p = 0.088) or random-effects (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.96, p = 0.044) models, but the limits of agreement show that for individual meta-analyses, agreement was much more variable. These limits tended to narrow with an increasing number (p = 0.077) or proportion of events (p = 0.11) in the AD. However, even when the information size of the AD was large, individual meta-analysis HRs could still differ from their IPD equivalents by a relative 10% in favour of the research intervention to 5% in favour of control. We utilised the results to construct a decision tree for assessing whether an AD meta-analysis includes sufficient information, and when estimates of effects are most likely to be reliable. A lack of power at the meta-analysis level may have prevented us identifying additional factors associated with the reliability of AD meta-analyses, and we cannot be sure that our results are generalisable to all outcomes and effect measures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that HRs from published AD were most likely to agree with those from IPD when the information size was large. Based on these findings, we provide guidance for determining systematically when standard AD meta-analysis will likely generate robust clinical conclusions, and when the IPD approach will add considerable value.

Addition of docetaxel or bisphosphonates to standard of care in men with localised or metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analyses of aggregate data.

BACKGROUND: Results from large randomised controlled trials combining docetaxel or bisphosphonates with standard of care in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have emerged. In order to investigate the effects of these therapies and to respond to emerging evidence, we aimed to systematically review all relevant trials using a framework for adaptive meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, conference proceedings, review articles, and reference lists of trial publications for all relevant randomised controlled trials (published, unpublished, and ongoing) comparing either standard of care with or without docetaxel or standard of care with or without bisphosphonates for men with high-risk localised or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For each trial, we extracted hazard ratios (HRs) of the effects of docetaxel or bisphosphonates on survival (time from randomisation until death from any cause) and failure-free survival (time from randomisation to biochemical or clinical failure or death from any cause) from published trial reports or presentations or obtained them directly from trial investigators. HRs were combined using the fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenzsel). FINDINGS: We identified five eligible randomised controlled trials of docetaxel in men with metastatic (M1) disease. Results from three (CHAARTED, GETUG-15, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2992 [93%] of 3206 men randomised) showed that the addition of docetaxel to standard of care improved survival. The HR of 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·87; p<0·0001) translates to an absolute improvement in 4-year survival of 9% (95% CI 5-14). Docetaxel in addition to standard of care also improved failure-free survival, with the HR of 0·64 (0·58-0·70; p<0·0001) translating into a reduction in absolute 4-year failure rates of 16% (95% CI 12-19). We identified 11 trials of docetaxel for men with locally advanced disease (M0). Survival results from three (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2121 [53%] of 3978 men) showed no evidence of a benefit from the addition of docetaxel (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·69-1·09]; p=0·218), whereas failure-free survival data from four (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE, TAX 3501) of these trials (2348 [59%] of 3978 men) showed that docetaxel improved failure-free survival (0·70 [0·61-0·81]; p<0·0001), which translates into a reduced absolute 4-year failure rate of 8% (5-10). We identified seven eligible randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates for men with M1 disease. Survival results from three of these trials (2740 [88%] of 3109 men) showed that addition of bisphosphonates improved survival (0·88 [0·79-0·98]; p=0·025), which translates to 5% (1-8) absolute improvement, but this result was influenced by the positive result of one trial of sodium clodronate, and we found no evidence of a benefit from the addition of zoledronic acid (0·94 [0·83-1·07]; p=0·323), which translates to an absolute improvement in survival of 2% (-3 to 7). Of 17 trials of bisphosphonates for men with M0 disease, survival results from four trials (4079 [66%] of 6220 men) showed no evidence of benefit from the addition of bisphosphonates (1·03 [0·89-1·18]; p=0·724) or zoledronic acid (0·98 [0·82-1·16]; p=0·782). Failure-free survival definitions were too inconsistent for formal meta-analyses for the bisphosphonate trials. INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to standard of care should be considered standard care for men with M1 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are starting treatment for the first time. More evidence on the effects of docetaxel on survival is needed in the M0 disease setting. No evidence exists to suggest that zoledronic acid improves survival in men with M1 or M0 disease, and any potential benefit is probably small. FUNDING: Medical Research Council UK.

Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use.

Jayne Tierney and colleagues offer guidance on how to spot a well-designed and well-conducted individual participant data meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes from randomized trials using restricted mean survival time: application to individual participant data.

Meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes using the hazard ratio as a treatment effect measure has an underlying assumption that hazards are proportional. The between-arm difference in the restricted mean survival time is a measure that avoids this assumption and allows the treatment effect to vary with time. We describe and evaluate meta-analysis based on the restricted mean survival time for dealing with non-proportional hazards and present a diagnostic method for the overall proportional hazards assumption. The methods are illustrated with the application to two individual participant meta-analyses in cancer. The examples were chosen because they differ in disease severity and the patterns of follow-up, in order to understand the potential impacts on the hazards and the overall effect estimates. We further investigate the estimation methods for restricted mean survival time by a simulation study.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence-free survival:A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapyB. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapyin patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of survival. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow-up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.For both meta-analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up-to-date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that has been carried out.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement.

IMPORTANCE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas. OBJECTIVE: To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis. DESIGN: Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus. FINDINGS: Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients' data.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard endpoint in clinical trials of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for lung cancer is overall survival. Although reliable and simple to measure, this endpoint takes years to observe. Surrogate endpoints that would enable earlier assessments of treatment effects would be useful. We assessed the correlations between potential surrogate endpoints and overall survival at individual and trial levels. METHODS: We analysed individual patients' data from 15,071 patients involved in 60 randomised clinical trials that were assessed in six meta-analyses. Two meta-analyses were of adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer, three were of sequential or concurrent chemotherapy, and one was of modified radiotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer. We investigated disease-free survival (DFS) or progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to local or distant relapse or death, and locoregional control, defined as the time to the first local event, as potential surrogate endpoints. At the individual level we calculated the squared correlations between distributions of these three endpoints and overall survival, and at the trial level we calculated the squared correlation between treatment effects for endpoints. FINDINGS: In trials of adjuvant chemotherapy, correlations between DFS and overall survival were very good at the individual level (ρ(2)=0.83, 95% CI 0.83-0.83 in trials without radiotherapy, and 0.87, 0.87-0.87 in trials with radiotherapy) and excellent at trial level (R(2)=0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.95 in trials without radiotherapy and 0.99, 0.98-1.00 in trials with radiotherapy). In studies of locally advanced disease, correlations between PFS and overall survival were very good at the individual level (ρ(2) range 0.77-0.85, dependent on the regimen being assessed) and trial level (R(2) range 0.89-0.97). In studies with data on locoregional control, individual-level correlations were good (ρ(2)=0.71, 95% CI 0.71-0.71 for concurrent chemotherapy and ρ(2)=0.61, 0.61-0.61 for modified vs standard radiotherapy) and trial-level correlations very good (R(2)=0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.92 for concurrent chemotherapy and R(2)=0.95, 0.91-0.98 for modified vs standard radiotherapy). INTERPRETATION: We found a high level of evidence that DFS is a valid surrogate endpoint for overall survival in studies of adjuvant chemotherapy involving patients with non-small-cell lung cancers, and PFS in those of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. Extrapolation to targeted agents, however, is not automatically warranted. FUNDING: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, British Medical Research Council, Sanofi-Aventis.

Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses.

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.

Radiographic Progression-Free Survival and Clinical Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogates for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite major increases in the longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), most men still die of prostate cancer. Phase III trials assessing new therapies in mHSPC with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point will take approximately a decade to complete. We investigated whether radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and clinical PFS (cPFS) are valid surrogates for OS in men with mHSPC and could potentially be used to expedite future phase III clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained individual patient data (IPD) from 9 eligible randomized trials comparing treatment regimens (different androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] strategies or ADT plus docetaxel in the control or research arms) in mHSPC. rPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to radiographic progression or death from any cause whichever occurred first; cPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of radiographic progression, symptoms, initiation of new treatment, or death, whichever occurred first. We implemented a two-stage meta-analytic validation model where conditions of patient-level and trial-level surrogacy had to be met. We then computed the surrogate threshold effect (STE). RESULTS: IPD from 6,390 patients randomly assigned from 1994 to 2012 from 13 units were pooled for a stratified analysis. The median OS, rPFS, and cPFS were 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.5), 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.5), and 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.2 to 2.4), respectively. The STEs were 0.80 and 0.81 for rPFS and cPFS end points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both rPFS and cPFS appear to be promising surrogate end points for OS. The STE of 0.80 or higher makes it viable for either rPFS or cPFS to be used as the primary end point that is surrogate for OS in phase III mHSPC trials with testosterone suppression alone as the backbone therapy and would expedite trial conduct.

Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS).

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related lower limb amputations are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and are usually preceded by foot ulceration. The available systematic reviews of aggregate data are compromised because the primary studies report both adjusted and unadjusted estimates. As adjusted meta-analyses of aggregate data can be challenging, the best way to standardise the analytical approach is to conduct a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD).There are however many challenges and fundamental methodological omissions are common; protocols are rare and the assessment of the risk of bias arising from the conduct of individual studies is frequently not performed, largely because of the absence of widely agreed criteria for assessing the risk of bias in this type of review. In this protocol we propose key methodological approaches to underpin our IPD systematic review of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in diabetes.Review questions;1. What are the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes?2. Can the data from each study be adjusted for a consistent set of adjustment factors?3. Does the model accuracy change when patient populations are stratified according to demographic and/or clinical characteristics? METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from their inception until early 2012 were searched and the corresponding authors of all eligible primary studies invited to contribute their raw data. We developed relevant quality assurance items likely to identify occasions when study validity may have been compromised from several sources. A confidentiality agreement, arrangements for communication and reporting as well as ethical and governance considerations are explained.We have agreement from the corresponding authors of all studies which meet the eligibility criteria and they collectively possess data from more than 17000 patients. We propose, as a provisional analysis plan, to use a multi-level mixed model, using "study" as one of the levels. Such a model can also allow for the within-patient clustering that occurs if a patient contributes data from both feet, although to aid interpretation, we prefer to use patients rather than feet as the unit of analysis. We intend to only attempt this analysis if the results of the investigation of heterogeneity do not rule it out and the model diagnostics are acceptable. DISCUSSION: This review is central to the development of a global evidence-based strategy for the risk assessment of the foot in patients with diabetes, ensuring future recommendations are valid and can reliably inform international clinical guidelines.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Loss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention on the proportion of participants retained in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial strategy and trial setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration's Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register, and ERIC. We handsearched conference proceedings and publication reference lists for eligible retention trials. We also surveyed all UK Clinical Trials Units to identify further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible retention trials of randomised or quasi-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We contacted authors to supplement or confirm data that we had extracted. For retention trials, we recorded data on the method of randomisation, type of strategy evaluated, comparator, primary outcome, planned sample size, numbers randomised and numbers retained. We used risk ratios (RR) to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials using the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics. For main trials that hosted retention trials, we extracted data on disease area, intervention, population, healthcare setting, sequence generation and allocation concealment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 38 eligible retention trials. Included trials evaluated six broad types of strategies to improve retention. These were incentives, communication strategies, new questionnaire format, participant case management, behavioural and methodological interventions. For 34 of the included trials, retention was response to postal and electronic questionnaires with or without medical test kits. For four trials, retention was the number of participants remaining in the trial. Included trials were conducted across a spectrum of disease areas, countries, healthcare and community settings. Strategies that improved trial retention were addition of monetary incentives compared with no incentive for return of trial-related postal questionnaires (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28, P value < 0.0001), addition of an offer of monetary incentive compared with no offer for return of electronic questionnaires (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38, P value < 0.00001) and an offer of a GBP20 voucher compared with GBP10 for return of postal questionnaires and biomedical test kits (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22, P value < 0.005). The evidence that shorter questionnaires are better than longer questionnaires was unclear (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, P value = 0.07) and the evidence for questionnaires relevant to the disease/condition was also unclear (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Although each was based on the results of a single trial, recorded delivery of questionnaires seemed to be more effective than telephone reminders (RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.87, P value = 0.02) and a 'package' of postal communication strategies with reminder letters appeared to be better than standard procedures (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67, P value < 0.0001). An open trial design also appeared more effective than a blind trial design for return of questionnaires in one fracture prevention trial (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63, P value = 0.0003).There was no good evidence that the addition of a non-monetary incentive, an offer of a non-monetary incentive, 'enhanced' letters, letters delivered by priority post, additional reminders, or questionnaire question order either increased or decreased trial questionnaire response/retention. There was also no evidence that a telephone survey was either more or less effective than a monetary incentive and a questionnaire. As our analyses are based on single trials, the effect on questionnaire response of using offers of charity donations, sending reminders to trial sites and when a questionnaire is sent, may need further evaluation. Case management and behavioural strategies used for trial retention may also warrant further evaluation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the retention trials that we identified evaluated questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. Monetary incentives and offers of monetary incentives increased postal and electronic questionnaire response. Some other strategies evaluated in single trials looked promising but need further evaluation. Application of the findings of this review would depend on trial setting, population, disease area, data collection and follow-up procedures.

Estimating interactions and subgroup-specific treatment effects in meta-analysis without aggregation bias: A within-trial framework.

Estimation of within-trial interactions in meta-analysis is crucial for reliable assessment of how treatment effects vary across participant subgroups. However, current methods have various limitations. Patients, clinicians and policy-makers need reliable estimates of treatment effects within specific covariate subgroups, on relative and absolute scales, in order to target treatments appropriately-which estimation of an interaction effect does not in itself provide. Also, the focus has been on covariates with only two subgroups, and may exclude relevant data if only a single subgroup is reported. Therefore, in this article we further develop the "within-trial" framework by providing practical methods to (1) estimate within-trial interactions across two or more subgroups; (2) estimate subgroup-specific ("floating") treatment effects that are compatible with the within-trial interactions and make maximum use of available data; and (3) clearly present this data using novel implementation of forest plots. We described the steps involved and apply the methods to two examples taken from previously published meta-analyses, and demonstrate a straightforward implementation in Stata based upon existing code for multivariate meta-analysis. We discuss how the within-trial framework and plots can be utilised with aggregate (or "published") source data, as well as with individual participant data, to effectively demonstrate how treatment effects differ across participant subgroups.

Using individual participant data to improve network meta-analysis projects.

A network meta-analysis combines the evidence from existing randomised trials about the comparative efficacy of multiple treatments. It allows direct and indirect evidence about each comparison to be included in the same analysis, and provides a coherent framework to compare and rank treatments. A traditional network meta-analysis uses aggregate data (eg, treatment effect estimates and standard errors) obtained from publications or trial investigators. An alternative approach is to obtain, check, harmonise and meta-analyse the individual participant data (IPD) from each trial. In this article, we describe potential advantages of IPD for network meta-analysis projects, emphasising five key benefits: (1) improving the quality and scope of information available for inclusion in the meta-analysis, (2) examining and plotting distributions of covariates across trials (eg, for potential effect modifiers), (3) standardising and improving the analysis of each trial, (4) adjusting for prognostic factors to allow a network meta-analysis of conditional treatment effects and (5) including treatment-covariate interactions (effect modifiers) to allow relative treatment effects to vary by participant-level covariate values (eg, age, baseline depression score). A running theme of all these benefits is that they help examine and reduce heterogeneity (differences in the true treatment effect between trials) and inconsistency (differences in the true treatment effect between direct and indirect evidence) in the network. As a consequence, an IPD network meta-analysis has the potential for more precise, reliable and informative results for clinical practice and even allows treatment comparisons to be made for individual patients and targeted populations conditional on their particular characteristics.