Utilising systematic reviews to assess potential overtreatment and claim for better evidence-based research: an analysis of anticancer drugs versus supportive care in advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Highlighting the identified gaps in evidence-based research concerning advanced esophageal cancer (EC) treatment and care, this review evaluates the efficacy and safety of anticancer drugs compared to supportive care for advanced EC patients, aiming to assess the appropriateness of usual treatments and identify the gaps that need to be filled with primary research. METHODS: We searched (May 2022) MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and PROSPERO) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticancer drugs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or biological/targeted therapy) with supportive care in advanced EC. The results were summarised using GRADE summary of finding tables. RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs. Most studies did not have a special focus on EC, did not detail the treatment lines in all patients, and did not evaluate all outcomes. Anticancer drugs may result in a slight increase in overall survival (OS) (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71, 0.86; MD 0.83 months) and better progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.56 95% CI 0.49, 0.64, MD 0.68 months), but also may increase toxicity (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.13, 1.65), without a significant improvement in quality of life. The certainty of evidence was low or very low due to indirectness of results and lack of specific focus on EC in some studies. CONCLUSION: RCTs on advanced EC lack specificity, detailed treatment line information, and evaluation of all relevant outcomes. Moreover, when they find any benefit, this is negligible. Therefore, the certainty to justify anticancer drug treatments instead of supportive care in advanced EC is low or very low, and this information should be actively shared with affected patients. More and better RCTs should be conducted to assess whether any old or new proposed treatment for advanced EC patients provides a better balance of benefits and harms than the supportive care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6 ) on 2022-03-29.

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. CONCLUSION: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.

European clinical practice guidelines on the use of chemotherapy for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers: a critical review using the AGREE II and the AGREE-REX instruments.

PURPOSE: To assess the methodological quality of all relevant and recent European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers, and to synthesise their recommendations on the use of chemotherapy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, guidelines repositories, and other sources from 2010 onwards. We appraised quality using AGREE-II and AGREE-REX. RESULTS: 11 CPGs were included (five high, five low, and one moderate quality). Most guidelines showed deficiencies in the domain "applicability", with only three scoring above 60%. Nine did not report having sought the views and preferences of the target population. The lowest scores for AGREE-REX were item Values and Preferences of Target Users (1.6; SD 1.3), and item Values and Preferences of Policy/Decision-Makers (1.8; SD 1.7). The domain Clinical Applicability got the highest score and the domain Implementability got the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: An urgent area of research is how to develop credible and implementable recommendations on the clinical use of CT for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021236753).