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.

Long term pregnancy outcomes of women with cancer following fertility preservation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As cancer survivorship increases, there is higher uptake of fertility preservation treatments among affected women. However, there is limited evidence on the subsequent use of preserved material and pregnancy outcomes in women who underwent fertility preservation (FP) before cancer treatments. We aimed to systematically review the long-term reproductive and pregnancy outcomes in this cohort of women. PATIENTS: Women who underwent any type of the following FP treatments: embryo cryopreservation (EC), oocyte cryopreservation (OC) and ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC)) before any planned cancer treatment. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and HTA) from inception until May 2021 for all observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We extracted data on reproductive and pregnancy outcomes in duplicate and assessed the risk of bias in included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. We pooled data using a random-effects model and reported using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was live birth rate and other important reproductive and pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: Of 5405 citations, we screened 103 and included 26 observational studies (n = 7061 women). Hematologic malignancy was the commonest cause for seeking FP treatments, followed by breast and gynecology cancers. Twelve studies reported on OTC (12/26, 46 %), eight included EC (8/26, 30 %), and twelve reported on OC (12/26, 46 %). The cumulative live birth rate following any FP treatment was 0.046 (95 %CI 0.029-0.066). Only 8 % of women returned to use their frozen reproductive material (558/7037, 8.0 %), resulting in 210 live births in total, including assisted conceptions following EC/OC/OTC and natural conceptions following OTC. The odds for live birth was OR 0.38 (95 %CI 0.29-0.48 I2 83.7 %). The odds for live birth was the highest among women who had EC (OR 0.45, 95 %CI 0.14-0.76, I2 95.1 %), followed by the OTC group (OR 0.37, 95 %CI 0.22-0.53, I2 88.7 %) and OC group (OR 0.31, 95 %CI 0.15-0.47, I2 78.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation treatments offered good long-term reproductive outcomes for women with cancer with a high chance to achieve a live birth. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term pregnancy and offspring outcomes in this cohort.

Development of a checklist of standard items for processing individual participant data from randomised trials for meta-analyses: Protocol for a modified e-Delphi study.

Individual participant data meta-analyses enable detailed checking of data quality and more complex analyses than standard study-level synthesis of summary data based on publications. However, there is limited existing guidance on the specific systematic checks that should be undertaken to confirm and enhance data quality for individual participant data meta-analyses and how to conduct these checks. We aim to address this gap by developing a checklist of items for data quality checking and cleaning to be applied to individual participant data meta-analyses of randomised trials. This study will comprise three phases: 1) a scoping review to identify potential checklist items; 2) two e-Delphi survey rounds among an invited panel of experts followed by a consensus meeting; and 3) pilot testing and refinement of the checklist, including development of an accompanying R-markdown program to facilitate its uptake.

Sharing individual participant data: through a systematic reviewer lens.

An increasing prevalence of data-sharing models, aimed at making individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials widely available, should facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on IPD. We have assessed these different data-sharing approaches, from the perspective of experienced IPD reviewers, to examine their utility for conducting systematic reviews based on IPD, and to highlight any challenges. We present an overview of the range of different models, including the traditional, single question approach, topic-based repositories, and the newer generic data platforms, and show that there are benefits and drawbacks to each. In particular, not all of the new models allow researchers to fully realise the well-documented advantages of using IPD for meta-analysis, and we offer potential solutions that can help improve both data quantity and utility. However, to achieve the "nirvana" of an ideal clinical data sharing environment, both for IPD meta-analysis and other secondary research purposes, we propose that data providers, data requestors, funders, and platforms need to adopt a more joined-up and standardised approach.

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.

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.

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.

Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

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.

Uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data in clinical practice guidelines: descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the extent to which systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) are being used to inform the recommendations included in published clinical guidelines. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Database maintained by the Cochrane IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group, supplemented by records of published IPD meta-analyses held in a separate database. POPULATION: A test sample of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included a meta-analysis of IPD, and a separate sample of clinical guidelines, matched to the IPD meta-analyses according to medical condition, interventions, populations, and dates of publication. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information on each guideline was extracted along with evidence showing use or critical appraisal, or both, of the IPD meta-analysis within the guideline; recommendations based directly on its findings and the use of other systematic reviews in the guideline. RESULTS: Based on 33 IPD meta-analyses and 177 eligible, matched clinical guidelines there was evidence that IPD meta-analyses were being under-utilised. Only 66 guidelines (37%) cited a matched IPD meta-analysis. Around a third of these (n=22, 34%) had critically appraised the IPD meta-analysis. Recommendations based directly on the matched IPD meta-analyses were identified for only 18 of the 66 guidelines (27%). For the guidelines that did not cite a matched IPD meta-analysis (n=111, 63%), search dates had preceded the publication of the IPD meta-analysis in 23 cases (21%); however, for the remainder, there was no obvious reasons why the IPD meta-analysis had not been cited. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on IPD are being under-utilised. Guideline developers should routinely seek good quality and up to date IPD meta-analyses to inform guidelines. Increased use of IPD meta-analyses could lead to improved guidelines ensuring that routine patient care is based on the most reliable evidence available.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: A previous systematic review found that giving neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improved survival compared with radiotherapy. However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with early or locally-advanced cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) (to Issue 8, 2012), MEDLINE (OVID) (to Aug 2012), LILACS (to Aug 2012), Physician's Data Query (PDQ) (to Aug 2012). We sought both published and unpublished trials and undertook systematic searches of a number of trial sources with no restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery in women with early or locally-advanced cervical cancer who had not undergone any prior treatment likely to interfere with the treatment comparison. Trials giving radical radiotherapy for inoperable tumours and/or post-operative radiotherapy were also eligible. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), local and distant recurrence, rates of resection and surgical morbidity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted and checked data from trial reports, Depending on the type of outcome, trial hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were obtained or estimated from trial reports, or sought from trial investigators. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (1078 women) were identified for inclusion in this updated review. All six trials provided data on OS (1071 women) and PFS (1027 women). Data on resection rates and pathological response were only available for five trials (908 to 940 women) and data on recurrence were only available for four trials (737 women). Both OS (HR 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.96, P = 0.02) and PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93, P = 0.008) were significantly improved with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The estimate for local recurrence was in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99, P = 0.04), although heterogeneity was observed. The result was no longer significant when the random-effects model was used (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12, P = 0.11). Whilst not significant, estimates for distant recurrence (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14, P = 0.16) and rates of resection (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.50, P = 0.07) tended to favour neoadjuvant chemotherapy, although heterogeneity was observed. Exploratory analyses of pathological response showed a significant decrease in adverse pathological findings with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, P = < 0.0001 for lymph node status; OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82, P = 0.002 for parametrial infiltration) which, despite substantial heterogeneity, was still significant when the random-effects model was used. There were also no differences in the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival according to total cisplatin dose, chemotherapy cycle length or by cervical cancer stage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both OS and PFS were improved with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Although the effects were less clear on all other pre-specified outcomes, they all tended to be in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Whilst these results appear to indicate that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may offer a benefit over surgery alone for women with early-stage or locally-advanced cervical cancer, the evidence is based on only a small number of trials, and further research may be warranted.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery for cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: A prior systematic review found that giving neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improved survival compared with radiotherapy. However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with early or locally advanced cervical cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (to March 2009), LILACS (to March 2009), Physician's Data Query (PDQ) (to March 2009). Both published and unpublished trials were sought and systematic searches of a number of trial sources were undertaken with no restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery in women with early or locally advanced cervical cancer who had not undergone any prior treatment likely to interfere with the treatment comparison. Trials giving radical radiotherapy for inoperable tumours and/or post-operative radiotherapy were also eligible. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), local and distant recurrence, rates of resection and surgical morbidity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from trial reports and independently checked by two review authors. Depending on the type of outcome, trial hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were obtained or estimated from trial reports or sought from trial investigators. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (1072 women) were identified for inclusion in the review. Although data on PFS was available for all six trials (1036 women), data on overall survival, resection rates and pathological response were only available for five trials (909 to 938 women) and data on recurrence were only available for three trials (604 women). Whilst PFS was significantly improved with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.94, p = 0.01), no OS benefit was observed (HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.07, p = 0.17). Furthermore, estimates for both local (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.17, p = 0.21) and distant (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.41 to 1.13, p = 0.13) recurrence and rates of resection (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.96 to 2.50, p = 0.07) only tended to be in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and heterogeneity was observed. Exploratory analyses of pathological response showed a significant decrease in adverse pathological findings with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.73, p = < 0.0001 for lymph node status; OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.82, p = 0.002 for parametrial infiltration) which despite a high level of heterogeneity was still significant when the random effects model was used. There was also no difference in the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to total cisplatin dose, chemotherapy cycle length or by cervical cancer stage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite outcomes tending to be in favour of neoadjuvant chemotherapy few, including overall survival, were significant. Therefore, it remains unclear whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy consistently offers a benefit over surgery alone for women with early-stage or locally advanced cervical cancer.

Systematic review of therapeutic interventions in human prion disease.

BACKGROUND: The potential threat of a large outbreak of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease initiated a proliferation of research into the understanding and treatment of human prion disease. However, clinical research is at an early stage with a pressing need for objective evaluation of treatments to inform the design of future studies. METHODS: We aimed to summarize existing research on outcomes of patients with prion disease, considering any published clinical study and patient series with data on disease progression. Methods were prespecified in a protocol and studies were identified from systematic searches of multiple sources. RESULTS: One randomized trial was identified. Many studies were flawed or poorly reported, and therefore interpreted cautiously. One hundred forty published patient series revealed wide ranges in disease duration for each of the prion diseases. Thirty-three studies described the use of 14 drugs, 10 which were reported in single studies of three or fewer patients and one which was reported for two individual cases. Effects of four drugs were examined in more detail, with mixed results. The only current reliable evidence is from the single randomized trial suggesting that flupirtine may slow cognitive decline. Based on published information identified by this review, survival of most treated patients is within the ranges reported in the untreated patient series. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty years of clinical investigation of patients with prion disease has resulted in little progress in either defining or evaluating potential treatments. Disease course and treatment of all patients must be evaluated within a structured framework, preferably within randomized controlled trials.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature: chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer has remained unclear despite the conduct of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to assess the effectiveness of preoperative chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. This involved identifying eligible RCTs and extracting aggregate data from the abstracts or reports of these RCTs. Hazard ratios were calculated from these published summary statistics and then combined to give pooled estimates of treatment efficacy. RESULTS: Twelve eligible RCTs were identified, from which data from seven RCTs, including 988 patients (75% of eligible patients), could be combined in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Preoperative chemotherapy improved survival with a hazard ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.97; p = 0.02). This is equivalent to an absolute benefit of 6%, increasing overall survival across all stages of disease from 14% to 20% at 5 years. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows a significant benefit of preoperative chemotherapy and is currently the best estimate of the effectiveness of this therapy, but this is based on a small number of trials and patients. This current analysis was unable to address important questions such as whether particular types of patients may benefit more or less from preoperative chemotherapy or whether the early stopping of a number of included RCTs impacted on the results. To assess this, an individual patient data meta-analysis is required.