Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). BACKGROUND: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. METHODS: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods." RESULTS: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Consideration of Metastasis-Directed Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Expert Survey and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A survey of medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs), and surgical oncologists (SOs) who are experts in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to identify factors used to consider metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey to assess clinical factors when weighing MDT in patients with mCRC was developed based on systematic review of the literature and integrated with clinical vignettes. Supporting evidence from the systematic review was included to aid in answering questions. RESULTS: Among 75 experts on mCRC invited, 47 (response rate 62.7%) chose to participate including 16 MOs, 16 ROs, and 15 SOs. Most experts would not consider MDT in patients with 3 lesions in both the liver and lung regardless of distribution or timing of metastatic disease diagnosis (6 vs. 36 months after definitive treatment). Similarly, for patients with retroperitoneal lymph node and lung and liver involvement, most experts would not offer MDT regardless of timing of metastatic disease diagnosis. In general, SOs were willing to consider MDT in patients with more advanced disease, ROs were more willing to offer treatment regardless of metastatic site location, and MOs were the least likely to consider MDT. CONCLUSIONS: Among experts caring for patients with mCRC, significant variation was noted among MOs, ROs, and SOs in the distribution and volume of metastatic disease for which MDT would be considered. This variability highlights differing opinions on management of these patients and underscores the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials to characterize the risks and potential benefits of MDT.

Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation plus consolidative chemotherapy followed by radical operation for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Introduction: Limited evidence compares short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) and long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT), both of which are followed by consolidative chemotherapy before radical rectal surgery. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess treatment response, survival outcomes, and toxicity in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients (cT3-4 and/or N+) treated with SCRT or LCCRT, consolidative chemotherapy, or total mesorectal excision between 2013 and 2021 were identified. the cause-specific cumulative incidence of disease-related treatment failure, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and overall survival were evaluated using flexible parametric competing risk analysis and Kaplan-Meier methods, adjusted for treatment regimens and clinicopathological factors. A pathological complete response (pCR), tumor downstaging, and toxicity have been reported. Results: Among the 144 patients, 115 (80%) underwent curative rectal surgery. The LCCRT and SCRT groups achieved pCR in 10 (18%) and seven (12%) patients, respectively (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-4.78). The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for disease-related treatment failure with LCCRT versus SCRT was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.08-0.87). Three-year cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 10.0% and 25.6% for LCCRT and SCRT, respectively. No significant differences in T-downstaging, N-downstaging, significant pathologic downstaging (ypT0-2N0), locoregional failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival were found. Late rectal toxicity occurred in 10 (15%) LCCRT and two (3%) SCRT patients, respectively. Conclusion: LCCRT with consolidative chemotherapy demonstrated improved disease-related treatment failure compared with SCRT, despite higher late rectal toxicity. Further research is needed to assess the long-term oncologic outcomes and toxicity.