Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Neoadjuvant atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: the phase 2 PANDA trial.

Gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancers carry a poor prognosis, and despite recent advancements, most patients die of their disease. Although immune checkpoint blockade became part of the standard-of-care for patients with metastatic G/GEJ cancers, its efficacy and impact on the tumor microenvironment (TME) in early disease remain largely unknown. We hypothesized higher efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy in patients with nonmetastatic G/GEJ cancer. In the phase 2 PANDA trial, patients with previously untreated resectable G/GEJ tumors (n = 21) received neoadjuvant treatment with one cycle of atezolizumab monotherapy followed by four cycles of atezolizumab plus docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine. Treatment was well tolerated. There were grade 3 immune-related adverse events in two of 20 patients (10%) but no grade 4 or 5 immune-related adverse events, and all patients underwent resection without treatment-related delays, meeting the primary endpoint of safety and feasibility. Tissue was obtained at multiple time points, allowing analysis of the effects of single-agent anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and the subsequent combination with chemotherapy on the TME. Twenty of 21 patients underwent surgery and were evaluable for secondary pathologic response and survival endpoints, and 19 were evaluable for exploratory translational analyses. A major pathologic response (≤10% residual viable tumor) was observed in 14 of 20 (70%, 95% confidence interval 46-88%) patients, including 9 (45%, 95% confidence interval 23-68%) pathologic complete responses. At a median follow-up of 47 months, 13 of 14 responders were alive and disease-free, and five of six nonresponders had died as a result of recurrence. Notably, baseline anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)+CD8+ T cell infiltration was significantly higher in responders versus nonresponders, and comparison of TME alterations following anti-PD-L1 monotherapy versus the subsequent combination with chemotherapy showed an increased immune activation on single-agent PD-1/L1 axis blockade. On the basis of these data, monotherapy anti-PD-L1 before its combination with chemotherapy warrants further exploration and validation in a larger cohort of patients with nonmetastatic G/GEJ cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03448835 .

Metastatic site patterns by intrinsic subtype and HER2DX in early HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Even with contemporary treatment strategies, more than 10% of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer patients may experience distant metastasis as first event during follow-up. Tools for predicting unique patterns of metastatic spread are needed to plan personalized surveillance. We evaluated how molecular heterogeneity affects the pattern of distant relapse in HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 677 HER2-positive stage I-III breast cancer patients from ShortHER trial, Cher-LOB trial, and 2 institutional cohorts were included. PAM50 molecular subtypes and research-based HER2DX scores were evaluated. The cumulative incidence of distant relapse as the first event (any site and site specific) was evaluated using competing risk analysis. Median follow-up was 8.4 years. Tests of statistical significance are 2-sided. RESULTS: Stage III and high HER2DX risk score identified patients at the highest risk of distant relapse as first event (10-year incidence 24.5% and 19.7%, respectively). Intrinsic molecular subtypes were associated with specific patterns of metastatic spread: compared with other subtypes, HER2-enriched tumors were more prone to develop brain metastases (10-year incidence 3.8% vs 0.6%, P = .005), basal-like tumors were associated with an increased risk of lung metastases (10-year incidence 11.1% vs 2.6%, P = .001), and luminal tumors developed more frequently bone-only metastases (10-year incidence 5.1% vs 2.0%, P = .042). When added to stage or HER2DX risk score in competing risk regression models, intrinsic subtype maintained an independent association with site-specific metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of intrinsic molecular subtypes with stage or HER2DX risk score predicts site-specific metastatic risk in HER2-positive breast cancer, with potential implications for personalized surveillance and clinical trials aimed at preventing site-specific recurrence.

Nine-Week Versus One-Year Trastuzumab for Early Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: 10-Year Update of the ShortHER Phase III Randomized Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final analysis of the phase III noninferiority, randomized ShortHER trial comparing 9 weeks versus 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab with chemotherapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (BC). Women with HER2+ BC were randomly assigned to anthracycline-taxane combinations plus 1-year trastuzumab (arm A, long) or 9-week trastuzumab (arm B, short). Here, we report the second coprimary end point overall survival (OS), updated disease-free survival (DFS), and outcomes according to hormone receptor status, age, and nodal status. At a median follow-up of 9 years, 10-year DFS is 77% versus 78% in the long versus short arm, respectively. Ten-year OS is 89% versus 88% in the long versus short arm, respectively. 10-year DFS rates in the long versus short arm according to nodal status are N0 81% versus 85%; N1-3 77% versus 79%; and N4+ 63% versus 53%. Ten-year OS rates in long versus short arm according to nodal status are N0 89% versus 95%%; N1-3 92% versus 89%; and N4+ 84% versus 64%. The updated analysis of the ShortHER trial shows that 1-year trastuzumab is the standard treatment for patients with HER2+ early BC as noninferiority cannot be claimed. However, numerically, the differences for the patients at low or intermediate risk (N0/N1-3) is negligible, while patients with N4+ have a clear benefit with 1-year trastuzumab.

Immune landscape of breast tumors with low and intermediate estrogen receptor expression.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is currently approved for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), whereas responses to ICB are also observed in a small subgroup of Estrogen Receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. The cut-off for ER-positivity (≥1%) is based on likelihood of endocrine treatment response, but ER-positive breast cancer represents a very heterogeneous group. This raises the question whether selection based on ER-negativity should be revisited to select patients for ICB treatment in the context of clinical trials. Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) and other immune parameters are higher in TNBC compared to ER-positive breast cancer, but it is unknown whether lower ER levels are associated with more inflamed tumor microenvironments (TME). We collected a consecutive series of primary tumors from 173 HER2-negative breast cancer patients, enriched for tumors with ER expression between 1 and 99% and found levels of stromal TILs, CD8 + T cells, and PD-L1 positivity in breast tumors with ER 1-9% and ER 10-50% to be comparable to tumors with ER 0%. Expression of immune-related gene signatures in tumors with ER 1-9% and ER 10-50% was comparable to ER 0%, and higher than in tumors with ER 51-99% and ER 100%. Our results suggest that the immune landscape of ER low tumors (1-9%) and ER intermediate tumors (10-50%) mimic that of primary TNBC.

PD-L1 blockade in combination with carboplatin as immune induction in metastatic lobular breast cancer: the GELATO trial.

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common histological breast cancer subtype, but ILC-specific trials are lacking. Translational research revealed an immune-related ILC subset, and in mouse ILC models, synergy between immune checkpoint blockade and platinum was observed. In the phase II GELATO trial ( NCT03147040 ), patients with metastatic ILC were treated with weekly carboplatin (area under the curve 1.5 mg ml-1 min-1) as immune induction for 12 weeks and atezolizumab (PD-L1 blockade; triweekly) from the third week until progression. Four of 23 evaluable patients had a partial response (17%), and 2 had stable disease, resulting in a clinical benefit rate of 26%. From these six patients, four had triple-negative ILC (TN-ILC). We observed higher CD8+ T cell infiltration, immune checkpoint expression and exhausted T cells after treatment. With this GELATO trial, we show that ILC-specific clinical trials are feasible and demonstrate promising antitumor activity of atezolizumab with carboplatin, particularly for TN-ILC, and provide insights for the design of highly needed ILC-specific trials.

Type of adjuvant endocrine therapy and disease-free survival in patients with early HR-positive/HER2-positive BC: analysis from the phase III randomized ShortHER trial.

The optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy for HR-positive/HER2-positive breast cancer patients is unknown. We included in this analysis 784 patients with HR-positive/HER2-positive BC from the randomized ShortHER trial of adjuvant trastuzumab (1 year vs 9 weeks) + chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 8.7 years, patients who received AI had a significantly better DFS vs patients who received TAM or TAM-AI: 8-yr DFS 86.4 vs 79.7%, log-rank P = 0.013 (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09-2.11). In multivariate analysis, the type of endocrine therapy maintained a significant association with DFS (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.07-2.52, p = 0.025 for TAM/TAM-AI vs AI). Among premenopausal patients aged ≤45 years, the use of GnRHa was associated with longer DFS: 8-yr DFS rate 85.2 vs 62.6% (log-rank p = 0.019, HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.88). In this post-hoc analysis of the ShortHER trial adjuvant treatment with AI was independently associated with improved DFS. Subgroup analysis in premenopausal patients suggests benefits with ovarian suppression.Trial registration: NCI ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00629278.

Pediatric Bilateral Vocal Cord Immobility: New Treatment With Preservation of Voice.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric bilateral vocal cord immobility (BVCI) represents a severe life-threatening condition that often causes severe dyspnea. Endoscopic arytenoid lateral abduction (EALA) is a relatively new, secure, minimal-invasive surgical technique. The present prospective observational study aims to evaluate the effects of EALA in terms of respiratory function, voice quality, and swallowing capabilities. METHODS: Twenty-one pediatric patients with BVCI underwent EALA. Eleven out of 21 patients had tracheostomy at the time of surgery. Pre and postoperative functional assessments included endoscopic evaluation, maximum phonation time, pediatric Voice Handicap Index (pVHI), GIRBAS Scale criteria, and Montreal Children's Hospital Feeding scale (MCH-Feeding scale). peak tidal inspiratory flow or peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and number of desaturations/hour (ODI/h) were evaluated in patients without tracheostomy. RESULTS: Postoperative endoscopy showed glottic airway improvement in all patients. Average time for decannulation was 4.6 weeks. One patient has not yet been decannulated. No major complications occurred. In patients without tracheostomy, we observed a significant improvement of ODI/h and PIF after surgery (p < 0.05) as expected. PVHI, MCH-Feeding scale, and GIRBAS score significantly worsened 1 month after surgical intervention (p < 0.05). One year after surgery, however, all values, except for B and A parameters of the GIRBAS score, returned to levels comparable to those preoperative. CONCLUSIONS: EALA represents a simple, safe and effective solution in pediatric patients with BVCI, avoiding tracheostomy, allowing early decannulation, preserving swallowing function, and maintaining good quality voice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 133:2325-2332, 2023.

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess the treatment effects of medical interventions. To evaluate the agreement of effect estimates between bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and to identify factors associated with disagreement. METHODS: Systematic reviews were published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor identified through a MEDLINE search. BoE-pairs from RCTs and cohort studies with the same medical research question were included. We rated the similarity of PI/ECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) between BoE from RCTs and cohort studies. The agreement of effect estimates across BoE was analyzed by pooling ratio of ratios (RoR) for binary outcomes and difference of mean differences for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses to explore factors associated with disagreements. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine BoE pairs from 64 systematic reviews were included. PI/ECO-similarity degree was moderate: two BoE pairs were rated as "more or less identical"; 90 were rated as "similar but not identical" and 37 as only "broadly similar". For binary outcomes, the pooled RoR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.97-1.11) with considerable statistical heterogeneity. For continuous outcomes, differences were small. In subgroup analyses, degree of PI/ECO-similarity, type of intervention, and type of outcome, the pooled RoR indicated that on average, differences between both BoE were small. Subgroup analysis by degree of PI/ECO-similarity revealed high statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals across PI/ECO-dissimilar BoE pairs. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the pooled effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies did not differ. Statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals were mainly driven by PI/ECO-dissimilarities (i.e., clinical heterogeneity) and cohort studies. The potential influence of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence on differences of effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies needs to be explored in upcoming meta-epidemiological studies.

Single agent Talimogene Laherparepvec for stage IIIB-IVM1c melanoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Single-agent Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC) was developed for treatment of unresectable and injectable stage III-IV melanoma. Since its approval and reimbursement, studies have reported varying response rates. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of T-VEC. Of 341 publications that were identified, eight studies with a total of 642 patients were included. In patients with stage IIIB-IVM1a, the pooled complete- and overall response rate (CRR and ORR) were 41% and 64%, respectively. In patients with stage IIIB-IVM1c, the pooled CRR and ORR were 30% and 44%, respectively. In patients with stage IVM1b and IVM1c, the pooled CRR and ORR were 4% and 9%, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were seen in 41-100% of all patients and 0-11% of AEs were severe. In conclusion, single agent T-VEC achieves the highest response rates in patients with early metastatic melanoma and is well-tolerated with generally only mild toxicities.

Evaluating Concordance of Bodies of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials, Dietary Intake, and Biomarkers of Intake in Cohort Studies: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

We aimed to identify and compare empirical data to determine the concordance of diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), dietary intake, and biomarkers of dietary intake in cohort studies (CSs). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and MEDLINE were searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of RCTs and SRs of CSs that investigated both dietary intake and biomarkers of intake published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. For matched diet-disease associations, the concordance between results from the 3 different BoE was analyzed using 2 definitions: qualitative (e.g., 95% CI within a predefined range) and quantitative (test hypothesis on the z score). Moreover, the differences in the results coming from BoERCTs, BoECSs dietary intake, and BoECSs biomarkers were synthesized to get a pooled ratio of risk ratio (RRR) across all eligible diet-disease associations, so as to compare the 3 BoE. Overall, 49 diet-disease associations derived from 41 SRs were identified and included in the analysis. Twenty-four percent, 10%, and 39% of the diet-disease associations were qualitatively concordant comparing BoERCTs with BoECSs dietary intake, BoERCTs with BoECSs biomarkers, and comparing both BoE from CSs, respectively; 88%, 69%, and 90% of the diet-disease associations were quantitatively concordant comparing BoERCTs with BoECSs dietary intake, BoERCTs with BoECSs biomarkers, and comparing both BoE from CSs, respectively. The pooled RRRs comparing effects from BoERCTs with effects from BoECSs dietary intake were 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.13) and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.25) compared with BoECSs biomarkers. Comparing both BoE from CSs, the difference in the results was also small (RRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.96). Our findings suggest that BoE from RCTs and CSs are often quantitatively concordant. Prospective SRs in nutrition research should include, whenever possible, BoE from RCTs and CSs on dietary intake and biomarkers of intake to provide the whole picture for an investigated diet-disease association.

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research: meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and those from cohort studies in nutrition research, and to investigate potential factors for disagreement. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Medline. REVIEW METHODS: Population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome (PI/ECO) elements from a body of evidence from cohort studies (BoE(CS)) were matched with corresponding elements of a body of evidence from randomised controlled trials (BoE(RCT)). Pooled ratio of risk ratios or difference of mean differences across all diet-disease outcome pairs were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore factors for disagreement. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 and τ2. Prediction intervals were calculated to assess the range of possible values for the difference in the results between evidence from randomised controlled trials and evidence from cohort studies in future comparisons. RESULTS: 97 diet-disease outcome pairs (that is, matched BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS)) were identified overall. For binary outcomes, the pooled ratio of risk ratios comparing estimates from BoE(RCT) with BoE(CS) was 1.09 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.14; I2=68%; τ2=0.021; 95% prediction interval 0.81 to 1.46). The prediction interval indicated that the difference could be much more substantial, in either direction. We further explored heterogeneity and found that PI/ECO dissimilarities, especially for the comparisons of dietary supplements in randomised controlled trials and nutrient status in cohort studies, explained most of the differences. When the type of intake or exposure between both types of evidence was identical, the estimates were similar. For continuous outcomes, small differences were observed between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. CONCLUSION: On average, the difference in pooled results between estimates from BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS) was small. But wide prediction intervals and some substantial statistical heterogeneity in cohort studies indicate that important differences or potential bias in individual comparisons or studies cannot be excluded. Observed differences were mainly driven by dissimilarities in population, intervention or exposure, comparator, and outcome. These findings could help researchers further understand the integration of such evidence into prospective nutrition evidence syntheses and improve evidence based dietary guidelines.

Correlation Between Immune-related Adverse Event (IRAE) Occurrence and Clinical Outcome in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Treated With Nivolumab: IRAENE Trial, an Italian Multi-institutional Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has brought clinical benefits to patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Most patients tolerate immunotherapy but serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been reported. Some studies indicate a correlation between irAEs and clinical response in other cancer types (eg, lung cancer and melanoma). For patients with mRCC, the impact of irAE on clinical outcome is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 167 patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab as standard of care between March 2017 and January 2018 in 16 Italian centers was performed. irAEs were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0. RESULTS: Any grade and grade 3/4 irAEs occurred in 46% and 8.9% of patients, respectively. The median time to appearance of irAEs was 10 weeks; 38.8% of patients required steroid treatment. The most common irAEs were cutaneous (33.7%) and gastrointestinal (23.3%). The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 20.13 and 7.86 months, respectively. Patients with irAEs showed a greater overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.63) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.66) benefit as well as better overall response rate (27.3% vs. 13.7%; odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.03-5.44) and disease control rate (68.8% vs. 48%; odds ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.23-4.67) if compared with those without irAEs. No correlation was found between steroid use and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed that the appearance of irAEs was associated with better outcomes in patients treated with nivolumab. This data may be limited by sample size and the retrospective nature of the study.

Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in adult patients undergoing neurosurgical interventions for preventing venous thromboembolism.

The impact of pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention remains uncertain. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic compared with nonpharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. Three databases were searched through April 2018, including those for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and for nonrandomized controlled studies (NRSs). Independent reviewers assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seven RCTs and 3 NRSs proved eligible. No studies reported on symptomatic proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Two RCTs reported on screening-detected proximal and distal DVTs. We used the findings of these 2 RCTs as the closest surrogate outcomes to inform the proximal and distal DVT outcomes. These 2 RCTs suggest that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may decrease the risk of developing asymptomatic proximal DVT (relative risk [RR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.84; low certainty). Findings were uncertain for mortality (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.57-2.86; low certainty), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.03-27.42; very low certainty), asymptomatic distal DVT (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.08; very low certainty), and reoperation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-2.84; very low certainty) outcomes. NRSs also reported uncertain findings for whether pharmacologic prophylaxis affects mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.13; low certainty) and PE (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.01-3.76). For risk of bleeding, findings were uncertain in both RCTs (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.70-3.50; low certainty) and NRSs (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.30-7.12; very low certainty). In patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures, low certainty of evidence suggests that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis confers benefit for preventing asymptomatic (screening-detected) proximal DVT with very low certainty regarding its impact on patient-important outcomes.

Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: a systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines.

Values and preferences relate to the importance that patients place on health outcomes (eg, bleeding, having a deep venous thrombosis) and are essential when weighing benefits and harms in guideline recommendations. To inform the American Society of Hematology guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) disease, we conducted a systematic review of patients' values and preferences related to VTE. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to April of 2018 (PROSPERO-CRD42018094003). We included quantitative and qualitative studies. We followed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance for rating the certainty and presenting findings for quantitative research about the relative importance of health outcomes and a grounded theory approach for qualitative thematic synthesis. We identified 14 quantitative studies (2465 participants) describing the relative importance of VTE-related health states in a widely diverse population of patients, showing overall small to important impact on patients' lives (certainty of the evidence from low to moderate). Additionally, evidence from 34 quantitative studies (6424 participants) and 15 qualitative studies (570 participants) revealed that patients put higher value on VTE risk reduction than on the potential harms of the treatment (certainty of evidence from low to moderate). Studies also suggested a clear preference for oral medication over subcutaneous medication (moderate certainty). The observed variability in health state values may be a result of differences in the approaches used to elicit them and the diversity of included populations rather than true variability in values. This finding highlights the necessity to explore the variability induced by different approaches to ascertain values.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Validation of the AJCC prognostic stage for HER2-positive breast cancer in the ShortHER trial.

BACKGROUND: The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging has introduced prognostic stage based on anatomic stage combined with biologic factors. We aimed to validate the prognostic stage in HER2-positive breast cancer patients enrolled in the ShortHER trial. METHODS: The ShortHER trial randomized 1253 HER2-positive patients to 9 weeks or 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab combined with chemotherapy. Patients were classified according to the anatomic and the prognostic stage. Distant disease-free survival (DDFS) was calculated from randomization to distant relapse or death. RESULTS: A total of 1244 patients were included. Compared to anatomic stage, the prognostic stage downstaged 41.6% (n = 517) of patients to a more favorable stage category. Five-year DDFS based on anatomic stage was as follows: IA 96.6%, IB 94.1%, IIA 92.4%, IIB 87.3%, IIIA 81.3%, IIIC 70.5% (P < 0.001). Five-year DDFS according to prognostic stage was as follows: IA 95.7%, IB 91.4%, IIA 86.9%, IIB 85.0%, IIIA 77.6%, IIIC 67.7% (P < 0.001). The C index was similar (0.69209 and 0.69249, P = 0.975). Within anatomic stage I, the outcome was similar for patients treated with 9 weeks or 1 year trastuzumab (5-year DDFS 96.2% and 96.6%, P = 0.856). Within prognostic stage I, the outcome was numerically worse for patients treated with 9 weeks trastuzumab (5-year DDFS 93.7% and 96.3%, P = 0.080). CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic stage downstaged 41.6% of patients, while maintaining a similar prognostic performance as the anatomic stage. The prognostic stage is valuable in counseling patients and may serve as reference for a clinical trial design. Our data do not support prognostic stage as guidance to de-escalate treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT number: 2007-004326-25; NCI ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00629278.

How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the last three decades with mental health as a major research topic. It is then essential to well understand its methodology and interpret its results. In this publication, we describe how to perform a meta-analysis with the freely available statistical software environment R, using a working example taken from the field of mental health. METHODS: R package meta is used to conduct standard meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses for missing binary outcome data and potential selection bias are conducted with R package metasens. All essential R commands are provided and clearly described to conduct and report analyses. RESULTS: The working example considers a binary outcome: we show how to conduct a fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis, produce a forest and funnel plot and to test and adjust for funnel plot asymmetry. All these steps work similar for other outcome types. CONCLUSIONS: R represents a powerful and flexible tool to conduct meta-analyses. This publication gives a brief glimpse into the topic and provides directions to more advanced meta-analysis methods available in R.