Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: For people with localised prostate cancer, active treatments are effective but have significant side effects. Minimally invasive treatments that destroy (or ablate) either the entire gland or the part of the prostate with cancer may be as effective and cause less side effects at an acceptable cost. Such therapies include cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and brachytherapy, among others. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and active surveillance (AS) for primary treatment of localised prostate cancer, and compared with RP for salvage treatment of localised prostate cancer which has recurred after initial treatment with EBRT. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to March week 3, 2013), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (29 March 2013), EMBASE (1974 to week 13, 2013), Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) (1956 to 1 April 2013), Science Citation Index (1970 to 1 April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 3, 2013), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (issue 3, 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (inception to March 2013) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (inception to March 2013) databases were searched. Costs were obtained from NHS sources. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was drawn from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, and from case series for the ablative procedures only, in people with localised prostate cancer. For primary therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy, HIFU, brachytherapy and other ablative therapies. The comparators were AS, RP and EBRT. For salvage therapy, the ablative therapies were cryotherapy and HIFU. The comparator was RP. Outcomes were cancer related, adverse effects (functional and procedural) and quality of life. Two reviewers extracted data and carried out quality assessment. Meta-analysis used a Bayesian indirect mixed-treatment comparison. Data were incorporated into an individual simulation Markov model to estimate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The searches identified 121 studies for inclusion in the review of patients undergoing primary treatment and nine studies for the review of salvage treatment. Cryotherapy [3995 patients; 14 case series, 1 RCT and 4 non-randomised comparative studies (NRCSs)], HIFU (4000 patients; 20 case series, 1 NRCS) and brachytherapy (26,129 patients; 2 RCTs, 38 NRCSs) studies provided limited data for meta-analyses. All studies were considered at high risk of bias. There was no robust evidence that mortality (4-year survival 93% for cryotherapy, 99% for HIFU, 91% for EBRT) or other cancer-specific outcomes differed between treatments. For functional and quality-of-life outcomes, the paucity of data prevented any definitive conclusions from being made, although data on incontinence rates and erectile dysfunction for all ablative procedures were generally numerically lower than for non-ablative procedures. The safety profiles were comparable with existing treatments. Studies reporting the use of focal cryotherapy suggested that incontinence rates may be better than for whole-gland treatment. Data on AS, salvage treatment and other ablative therapies were too limited. The cost-effectiveness analysis confirmed the uncertainty from the clinical review and that there is no technology which appears superior, on the basis of current evidence, in terms of average cost-effectiveness. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that a number of ablative techniques are worthy of further research. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were the quantity and quality of the data available on cancer-related outcomes and dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that there is insufficient evidence to form any clear recommendations on the use of ablative therapies in order to influence current clinical practice. Research efforts in the use of ablative therapies in the management of prostate cancer should now be concentrated on the performance of RCTs and the generation of standardised outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002461. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review.

BACKGROUND: The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to the design and validity of a RCT is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size). The value used to determine the sample size can be considered the 'target difference'. From both a scientific and an ethical standpoint, selecting an appropriate target difference is of crucial importance. Determination of the target difference, as opposed to statistical approaches to calculating the sample size, has been greatly neglected though a variety of approaches have been proposed the current state of the evidence is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to provide an overview of the current evidence regarding specifying the target difference in a RCT sample size calculation. The specific objectives were to conduct a systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference; to evaluate current practice by surveying triallists; to develop guidance on specifying the target difference in a RCT; and to identify future research needs. DESIGN: The biomedical and social science databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus for in-press publications. All were searched from 1966 or the earliest date of the database coverage and searches were undertaken between November 2010 and January 2011. There were three interlinked components: (1) systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference for RCTs - a comprehensive search strategy involving an electronic literature search of biomedical and some non-biomedical databases and clinical trials textbooks was carried out; (2) identification of current trial practice using two surveys of triallists - members of the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) were invited to complete an online survey and respondents were asked about their awareness and use of, and willingness to recommend, methods; one individual per triallist group [UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), Medical Research Council (MRC) UK Hubs for Trials Methodology Research and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK Research Design Services (RDS)] was invited to complete a survey; (3) production of a structured guidance document to aid the design of future trials - the draft guidance was developed utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys by the project steering and advisory groups. SETTING: Methodological review incorporating electronic searches, review of books and guidelines, two surveys of experts (membership of an international society and UK- and Ireland-based triallists) and development of guidance. PARTICIPANTS: The two surveys were sent out to membership of the SCT and UK- and Ireland-based triallists. INTERVENTIONS: The review focused on methods for specifying the target difference in a RCT. It was not restricted to any type of intervention or condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods for specifying the target difference for a RCT were considered. RESULTS: The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant studies. In total, 1434 were selected for full-text assessment and 777 were included in the review. Seven methods to specify the target difference for a RCT were identified - anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of evidence base (RoEB) and standardised effect size (SES) - each having important variations in implementation. A total of 216 of the included studies used more than one method. A total of 180 (15%) responses to the SCT survey were received, representing 13 countries. Awareness of methods ranged from 38% (n =69) for the health economic method to 90% (n =162) for the pilot study. Of the 61 surveys sent out to UK triallist groups, 34 (56%) responses were received. Awareness ranged from 97% (n =33) for the RoEB and pilot study methods to only 41% (n =14) for the distribution method. Based on the most recent trial, all bar three groups (91%, n =30) used a formal method. Guidance was developed on the use of each method and the reporting of the sample size calculation in a trial protocol and results paper. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need for greater use of formal methods to determine the target difference and better reporting of its specification. Raising the standard of RCT sample size calculations and the corresponding reporting of them would aid health professionals, patients, researchers and funders in judging the strength of the evidence and ensuring better use of scarce resources. FUNDING: The Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research Joint Methodology Research programme.