ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have activity in various cancers. Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (MUC) is platinum sensitive and a subset harbour DNA repair gene alterations. OBJECTIVE: To assess evidence for efficacy and safety of PARP inhibition for MUC. METHODS: This systematic review included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating PARP inhibitors as monotherapy, or in therapeutic combinations, compared to relevant comparators or best supportive care. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from March 2013 to March 2023. Each study was appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Study results were synthesised descriptively. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023403145. RESULTS: From 247 identified reports, we included three phase 2 RCTs including 252 patients. Two RCTs assessed PARP inhibition in unselected patient groups (one first line platinum ineligible, one post chemotherapy maintenance) and found no evidence of efficacy. All three RCTs assessed subgroups defined by biomarker selection for somatic DNA repair defects. Two of these identified PFS benefit with PARP inhibition compared to a relevant comparator (one first line in combination with immunotherapy, one maintenance monotherapy). Safety outcomes were consistent with prior experience of PARP inhibitors. The risk of bias across the outcomes was generally low. CONCLUSIONS: PARP inhibitors lack efficacy for unselected MUC patients. Phase 2 RCTs support further investigation of PARP inhibition within biomarker-selected patient subsets. The optimal biomarker is not yet determined. Limitations in the current evidence relate to small sample sizes and low statistical power.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with genetic cancer susceptibility are presented with complex management options involving difficult decisions, for example about genetic testing, treatment, screening and risk-reducing surgery/medications. This review sought to explore the experience of patients using decision support resources in this context, and the impact on decision-making outcomes. Methods: Systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies involving adults with or without cancer who used a decision support resource pre- or post-genetic test for any cancer susceptibility. To gather a broad view of existing resources and gaps for development, digital or paper-based patient resources were included and not limited to decision aids. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise patient impact and experience. Results: Thirty-six publications describing 27 resources were included. Heterogeneity of resources and outcome measurements highlighted the multiple modes of resource delivery and personal tailoring acceptable to and valued by patients. Impact on cognitive, emotional, and behavioural outcomes was mixed, but mainly positive. Findings suggested clear potential for quality patient-facing resources to be acceptable and useful. Conclusions: Decision support resources about genetic cancer susceptibility are likely useful to support decision-making, but should be co-designed with patients according to evidence-based frameworks. More research is needed to study impact and outcomes, particularly in terms of longer term follow-up to identify whether patients follow through on decisions and whether any increased distress is transient. Innovative, streamlined resources are needed to scale up delivery of genetic cancer susceptibility testing for patients with cancer in mainstream oncology clinics. Tailored patient-facing decision aids should also be made available to patients identified as carriers of a pathogenic gene variant that increases future cancer risks, to complement traditional genetic counselling. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020220460, identifier: CRD42020220460.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Retraction of published research can reduce the dissemination of incorrect or misleading information, but concerns have been raised about the clarity and rigor of the retraction process. Failure to clearly and consistently retract research has several risks, for example discredited or erroneous research may inform health research studies (e.g. clinical trials), policies and practices, potentially rendering these unreliable. OBJECTIVE: To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of retracted Covid-19 articles reporting empirical research findings, based on searches of Medline, Embase and Scopus on 10th July and 19th December 2020. KEY RESULTS: We included 46 retracted Covid-19 articles. The number eligible for inclusion nearly doubled, from 26 to 46, in five months. Most articles (67%) were retracted from scientific journals and the remainder from preprint servers. Key findings: (1) reasons for retraction were not reported in 33% (15/46) of cases; (2) time from publication to retraction could not be determined in 43% (20/46) of cases; (3) More than half (59%) of retracted Covid-19 articles (27/46) remained available as original unmarked electronic documents after retraction (33% as full text and 26% as an abstract only). Sources of articles post-retraction were preprint servers, ResearchGate and, less commonly, websites including PubMed Central and the World Health Organization. A retracted journal article which controversially claimed a link between 5G technology and Covid-19 remains available in its original full text from at least 60 different websites. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction process is inconsistent and often ambiguous, with more than half of retracted Covid-19 research articles remaining available, unmarked, from a wide range of online sources. There is an urgent need to improve guidance on the retraction process and to extend this to cover preprint servers. We provide structured recommendations to address these concerns and to reduce the risks that arise when retracted research is inappropriately cited.