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.

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.

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change.

BACKGROUND: Research overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a case study, we carried out a scoping review to identify and examine duplicated network meta-analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched, in January 2020, for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of the systemic treatments docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1773 and 7844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Variation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. Particularly in fast-moving fields, review authors should be aware of all relevant studies, and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the specific aims or scope of the project, and that reports include information on how the work builds upon existing knowledge. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation.

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.

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.

A Systematic Review and Recommendation for Reporting of Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation Using Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been widely conducted for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in oncology, but little attention has been given to the adequacy of reporting and interpretation. This review evaluated the reporting quality of published meta-analyses on surrogacy evaluation and developed recommendations for future reporting. METHODS: We searched PubMed through August 2017 to identify studies that evaluated surrogate endpoints using the meta-analyses of RCTs in oncology. Both individual patient data (IPD) and aggregate data (AD) meta-analyses were included for the review. RESULTS: Eighty meta-analyses were identified: 22 used IPD and 58 used AD from multiple RCTs. We observed variability and reporting deficiencies in both IPD and AD meta-analyses, especially on reporting of trial selection, endpoint definition, study and patient characteristics for included RCTs, and important statistical methods and results. Based on these findings, we proposed a checklist and recommendations to improve completeness, consistency, and transparency of reports of meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation. We highlighted key aspects of the design and analysis of surrogate endpoints and presented explanations and rationale why these items should be clearly reported in surrogacy evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Our reporting of surrogate endpoint evaluation using meta-analyses (ReSEEM) guidelines and recommendations will improve the quality in reporting and facilitate the interpretation and reproducibility of meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation. Also, they should help promote greater methodological consistency and could also serve as an evaluation tool in the peer review process for assessing surrogacy research.

Prostate Radiotherapy for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A STOPCAP Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). OBJECTIVE: To systematically review trials of prostate radiotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a prospective framework (framework for adaptive meta-analysis [FAME]), we prespecified methods before any trial results were known. We searched extensively for eligible trials and asked investigators when results would be available. We could then anticipate that a definitive meta-analysis of the effects of prostate radiotherapy was possible. We obtained prepublication, unpublished, and harmonised results from investigators. INTERVENTION: We included trials that randomised men to prostate radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or ADT only. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of prostate radiotherapy on survival, progression-free survival (PFS), failure-free survival (FFS), biochemical progression, and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified one ongoing (PEACE-1) and two completed (HORRAD and STAMPEDE) eligible trials. Pooled results of the latter (2126 men; 90% of those eligible) showed no overall improvement in survival (HR=0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.04, p=0.195) or PFS (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.05, p=0.238) with prostate radiotherapy. There was an overall improvement in biochemical progression (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.82, p=0.94×10-8) and FFS (HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84, p=0.64×10-7), equivalent to ∼10% benefit at 3yr. The effect of prostate radiotherapy varied by metastatic burden-a pattern consistent across trials and outcome measures, including survival (<5, ≥5; interaction HR=1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.94, p=0.007). There was 7% improvement in 3-yr survival in men with fewer than five bone metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate radiotherapy should be considered for men with mHSPC with a low metastatic burden. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (metastases) is usually treated with hormone therapy. In men with fewer than five bone metastases, addition of prostate radiotherapy helped them live longer and should be considered.

Evidence Synthesis to Accelerate and Improve the Evaluation of Therapies for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer.

There are many ongoing randomised trials of promising therapies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), but standard systematic reviews may not synthesise these in a timely or reliable way. We demonstrate how a novel approach to evidence synthesis is being used to speed up and improve treatment evaluations for mHSPC. This more prospective, dynamic, and collaborative approach to systematic reviews of both trial results and individual participant data (IPD) is helping in establishing quickly and reliably which treatments are most effective and for which men. However, mHSPC is a complex disease and trials can be lengthy. Thus, parallel efforts will synthesise further IPD to identify early surrogate endpoints for overall survival and prognostic factors, to reduce the duration and improve the design of future trials. The STOPCAP M1 repository of IPD will be made available to other researchers for tackling new questions that might arise. The associated global, collaborative forum will aid strategic and harmonised development of the next generation of mHSPC trials (STOPCAP M1; http://www.stopcapm1.org). PATIENT SUMMARY: We report how a worldwide research effort will review results and anonymised data from advanced prostate cancer trials in new and different ways. We will work out, as quickly as possible, which advanced prostate cancer treatments are best and for which men. We will also find which measures of prostate cancer control and which cancer and patient characteristics can be used to shorten and improve trials of newer treatments. Finally, we describe how the data will help answer new questions about advanced prostate cancer and its treatments.

The Accuracy of Clinical Staging of Stage I-IIIa Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Analysis Based on Individual Participant Data.

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.

Adding abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to synthesise the results of numerous randomised controlled trials evaluating the addition of therapies to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). This systematic review aims to assess the effects of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone (AAP) to ADT. METHODS: Using our framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), we started the review process before trials had been reported and worked collaboratively with trial investigators to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge. Thus, we could determine the earliest opportunity for reliable meta-analysis and take account of unavailable trials in interpreting results. We searched multiple sources for trials comparing AAP plus ADT versus ADT in men with mHSPC. We obtained results for the primary outcome of overall survival (OS), secondary outcomes of clinical/radiological progression-free survival (PFS) and grade III-IV and grade V toxicity direct from trial teams. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of AAP plus ADT on OS and PFS, Peto Odds Ratios (Peto ORs) for the effects on acute toxicity and interaction HRs for the effects on OS by patient subgroups were combined across trials using fixed-effect meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We identified three eligible trials, one of which was still recruiting (PEACE-1 (NCT01957436)). Results from the two remaining trials (LATITUDE (NCT01715285) and STAMPEDE (NCT00268476)), representing 82% of all men randomised to AAP plus ADT versus ADT (without docetaxel in either arm), showed a highly significant 38% reduction in the risk of death with AAP plus ADT (HR = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.71, p = 0.55 × 10-10), that translates into a 14% absolute improvement in 3-year OS. Despite differences in PFS definitions across trials, we also observed a consistent and highly significant 55% reduction in the risk of clinical/radiological PFS (HR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.40-0.51, p = 0.66 × 10-36) with the addition of AAP, that translates to a 28% absolute improvement at 3 years. There was no evidence of a difference in the OS benefit by Gleason sum score, performance status or nodal status, but the size of the benefit may vary by age. There were more grade III-IV acute cardiac, vascular and hepatic toxicities with AAP plus ADT but no excess of other toxicities or death. INTERPRETATION: Adding AAP to ADT is a clinically effective treatment option for men with mHSPC, offering an alternative to docetaxel for men who are starting treatment for the first time. Future research will need to address which of these two agents or whether their combination is most effective, and for whom.

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.

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.

Should Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Be Considered for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Wild Type EGFR? Two Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials.

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.

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.

Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of risk of bias assessments based on published trial reports, for determining trial inclusion in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Reliability evaluation of risk of bias assessments. DATA SOURCES: 13 published individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses in cancer were used to source 95 randomised controlled trials. REVIEW METHODS: Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RevMan5.1) and accompanying guidance. Assessments were made for individual risk of bias domains and overall for each trial, using information from either trial reports alone or trial reports with additional information collected for IPD meta-analyses. Percentage agreements were calculated for individual domains and overall (<66%= low, ≥ 66% = fair, ≥ 90% = good). The two approaches were considered similarly reliable only when agreement was good. RESULTS: Percentage agreement between the two methods for sequence generation and incomplete outcome data was fair (69.5% (95% confidence interval 60.2% to 78.7%) and 80.0% (72.0% to 88.0%), respectively). However, percentage agreement was low for allocation concealment, selective outcome reporting, and overall risk of bias (48.4% (38.4% to 58.5%), 42.1% (32.2% to 52.0%), and 54.7% (44.7% to 64.7%), respectively). Supplementary information reduced the proportion of unclear assessments for all individual domains, consequently increasing the number of trials assessed as low risk of bias (and therefore available for inclusion in meta-analyses) from 23 (23%) based on publications alone to 66 (66%) based on publications with additional information. CONCLUSIONS: Using cancer trial publications alone to assess risk of bias could be unreliable; thus, reviewers should be cautious about using them as a basis for trial inclusion, particularly for those trials assessed as unclear risk. Supplementary information from trialists should be sought to enable appropriate assessments and potentially reduce or overcome some risks of bias. Furthermore, guidance should ensure clarity on what constitutes risk of bias, particularly for the more subjective domains.