WITHDRAWN: Chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy for metastatic malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant melanoma, one of the most aggressive of all skin cancers, is increasing in incidence throughout the world. Surgery remains the cornerstone of curative treatment in earlier stages. Metastatic disease is incurable in most affected people, because melanoma does not respond to most systemic treatments. A number of novel approaches are under evaluation and have shown promising results, but they are usually associated with increased toxicity and cost. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy has been reported to improve treatment results, but it is still unclear whether evidence exists to support this choice, compared with chemotherapy alone. No language restrictions were imposed. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of therapy with chemotherapy and immunotherapy (chemoimmunotherapy) versus chemotherapy alone in people with metastatic malignant melanoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (14 February 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to 30 January 2006 ), EMBASE (2003 to 20 July 2005) and LILACS (1982 to 20 February 2006). References, conference proceedings, and databases of ongoing trials were also used to locate trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials that compared the use of chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy on people of any age, diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed each study to determine whether it met the pre-defined selection criteria, with differences being resolved through discussion with the review team. Two authors independently extracted the data from the articles using data extraction forms. Quality assessment included an evaluation of various components associated with biased estimates of treatment effect. Whenever possible, a meta-analysis was performed on the extracted data, in order to calculate a weighed treatment effect across trials. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 2625 participants. We found evidence of an increase of objective response rates in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy, in comparison with people treated with chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact of these increased response rates was not translated into a survival benefit. We found no difference in survival to support the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy in the systemic treatment of metastatic melanoma, with a hazard ratio of 0.89 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.11, P = 0.31). Additionally, we found increased hematological and non-hematological toxicities in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We failed to find any clear evidence that the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy increases survival of people with metastatic melanoma. Further use of combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy should only be done in the context of clinical trials.

Androgenic suppression combined with radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced prostate cancer is often associated with elevated recurrence rates. Despite the modest response observed, external-beam radiotherapy has been the preferred treatment for this condition. More recent evidence from randomised trials has demonstrated clinical benefit with the combined use of androgen suppression in such cases. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the combination of distinct hormone therapy modalities versus radiotherapy alone for overall survival, disease-free survival and toxicity. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov) were scanned for randomised clinical trials involving radiotherapy with or without androgen suppression in local prostate cancer. The search strategy included articles published until October 2011. The studies were examined and the data of interest were plotted for meta-analysis. Survival outcomes were reported as a hazard ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Data from ten trials published from 1988 to 2011 were included, comprising 6555 patients. There was a statistically significant advantage to the use of androgen suppression, in terms of both overall survival and disease free survival, when compared to radiotherapy alone. The use of long-term goserelin (up to three years) was the strategy providing the higher magnitude of clinical benefit. In contrast to goserelin, there were no trials evaluating the use of other luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues as monotherapy. Complete hormonal blockade was not shown to be superior to goserelin monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this systematic review, the evidence supports the use of androgen suppression with goserelin monotherapy as the standard treatment for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy, which are at high risk of recurrence or metastases.

Adjuvant therapy for locally advanced renal cell cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many adjuvant trials have been undertaken in an attempt to reduce the risk of recurrence among patients who undergo surgical resection for locally advanced renal cancer. However, no clear benefit has been identified to date. This systematic review was conducted to examine the exact role of adjuvant therapy in renal cancer setting. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were searched comparing adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, vaccine, immunotherapy, biochemotherapy) versus no active treatment after surgery among renal cell cancer patients. Outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and severe toxicities. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was measured by I2. Different strategies of adjuvant treatment were evaluated separately. RESULTS: Ten studies (2,609 patients) were included. Adjuvant therapy provided no benefits in terms of OS (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.89 to 1.28; P = 0.48 I2 = 0%) or DFS (HR 1.03; 95%CI 0.87 to 1.21; P = 0.77 I2 = 15%) when compared to no treatment. No subgroup analysis (immunotherapy, vaccines, biochemotherapy and hormone therapy) had relevant results. Toxicity evaluation depicted a significantly higher frequency of serious adverse events in the adjuvant group. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provided no support for the hypothesis that the agents studied provide any clinical benefit for renal cancer patients although they increase the risk of toxic effects. Randomized trials are underway to test targeted therapies, which might open a new therapeutic frontier. Until these trials yield results, no adjuvant therapy can be recommended for patients who undergo surgical resection for renal cell cancer.

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists for Ovarian Function Preservation in Premenopausal Women Undergoing Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Chemotherapy may result in a detrimental effect on ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal women undergoing treatment for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). To minimize risk of harm to ovarian function and fertility for patients in this setting, careful considerations should be made. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) have been suggested as an alternative to prevent the loss of ovarian function due to exposure to cytotoxic agents, but GnRHa use for ovarian protection in EBC patients is not fully resolved. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of GnRHa administered concurrently with chemotherapy for ovarian function preservation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between January 1975 and March 2015. The abstracts of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting between 1995 and 2014 and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium between 2009 and 2014 were searched as well. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, randomized, clinical trials addressing the role of ovarian suppression with GnRHa in preventing early ovarian dysfunction in premenopausal women undergoing treatment for EBC were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was performed independently by 2 authors. The methodology and the risk of bias were assessment based on the description of randomization method, withdrawals, and blinding process. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rate of resumption of regular menses after a minimal follow-up period of 6 months following chemotherapy was used as a surrogate to assess the incidence of ovarian dysfunction. Additional secondary outcomes included hormone levels and number of pregnancies. Risk ratio estimates were calculated based on the number of evaluable patients. Analyses were conducted using a random effect model. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this analysis, totaling 1047 randomized patients and 856 evaluable patients. The use of GnRHa was associated with a higher rate of recovery of regular menses after 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 2.41; 95% CI, 1.40-4.15; P = .002) and at least 12 months (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33-2.59; P < .001) following the last chemotherapy cycle. The use of GnRHa was also associated with a higher number of pregnancies (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.02-3.36; P = .04), although this outcome was not uniformly reported and fertility or rate of pregnancy was not the primary outcome in any of the trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists given with chemotherapy was associated with increased rates of recovery of regular menses in this meta-analysis. Evidence was insufficient to assess outcomes related to GnRHa and ovarian function and fertility and needs further investigation.

Requerimentos mínimos para o planejamento e análise de estudos clínicos de não inferioridade: [revisão] / Minimum requirements for planning and analyzing non-inferiority clinical trials: [review]

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Estudos de não inferioridade, de uso crescente em pesquisa clínica, são metodologicamente distintos dos estudos tradicionais de superioridade e são particularmente úteis quando existem impedimentos éticos para estudos placebo controlados. O objetivo deste estudo foi rever os critérios mínimos a serem observados no planejamento, condução e análise dos estudos de não inferioridade. CONTEÚDO: Os seguintes determinantes críticos dos estudos de não inferioridade são apresentados e discutidos: margem de não inferioridade, sensibilidade de ensaio, tamanho da amostra, estratégias de análise, algoritmo de inferência e condições que suportam conclusão de superioridade. CONCLUSÃO: Os estudos de não inferioridade possuem um conjunto particular de vieses a serem controlados e o uso correto desta metodologia é orientado por algumas diretrizes regulatórias internacionais. A observância de certo número de requerimentos mínimos é condição necessária para assegurar a validade das conclusões dos estudos de não inferioridade.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-inferiority trials with increasing utilization in clinical research have different properties in relation to traditional superiority trials. They are particular useful in situations where placebo controlled studies are considered unethical. This study is a brief review of basic criteria to be observed for planning, executing and analyzing non-inferiority studies. CONTENTS: The following critical issues of non-inferiority studies are discussed: non-inferiority margin, essay sensitivity, sample size determination, strategies for analysis, rules of inference and conditions for switching to claim of superiority. CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority designs are subject to a particular set of bias and some international guidelines are available. Clinical investigators should be aware of basic requirements to ensure validity of conclusions from non-inferiority studies.