Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses.

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.

Efficacy and moderators of efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma focus in children and adolescents: an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Existing clinical trials of cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma focus (CBTs-TF) are underpowered to examine key variables that might moderate treatment effects. We aimed to determine the efficacy of CBTs-TF for young people, relative to passive and active control conditions, and elucidate putative individual-level and treatment-level moderators. METHODS: This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomised studies in young people aged 6-18 years exposed to trauma. We included studies identified by the latest UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines (completed on Jan 29, 2018) and updated their search. The search strategy included database searches restricted to publications between Jan 1, 2018, and Nov 12, 2019; grey literature search of trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN; preprint archives PsyArXiv and bioRxiv; and use of social media and emails to key authors to identify any unpublished datasets. The primary outcome was post-traumatic stress symptoms after treatment (<1 month after the final session). Predominantly, one-stage random-effects models were fitted. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019151954. FINDINGS: We identified 38 studies; 25 studies provided individual participant data, comprising 1686 young people (mean age 13·65 years [SD 3·01]), with 802 receiving CBTs-TF and 884 a control condition. The risk-of-bias assessment indicated five studies as low risk and 20 studies with some concerns. Participants who received CBTs-TF had lower mean post-traumatic stress symptoms after treatment than those who received the control conditions, after adjusting for post-traumatic stress symptoms before treatment (b=-13·17, 95% CI -17·84 to -8·50, p<0·001, τ2=103·72). Moderation analysis indicated that this effect of CBTs-TF on post-traumatic stress symptoms post-treatment increased by 0·15 units (b=-0·15, 95% CI -0·29 to -0·01, p=0·041, τ2=0·03) for each unit increase in pre-treatment post-traumatic stress symptoms. INTERPRETATION: This is the first individual participant data meta-analysis of young people exposed to trauma. Our findings support CBTs-TF as the first-line treatment, irrespective of age, gender, trauma characteristics, or carer involvement in treatment, with particular benefits for those with higher initial distress. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation.

A new approach to evaluating loop inconsistency in network meta-analysis.

In network meta-analysis, studies evaluating multiple treatment comparisons are modeled simultaneously, and estimation is informed by a combination of direct and indirect evidence. Network meta-analysis relies on an assumption of consistency, meaning that direct and indirect evidence should agree for each treatment comparison. Here we propose new local and global tests for inconsistency and demonstrate their application to three example networks. Because inconsistency is a property of a loop of treatments in the network meta-analysis, we locate the local test in a loop. We define a model with one inconsistency parameter that can be interpreted as loop inconsistency. The model builds on the existing ideas of node-splitting and side-splitting in network meta-analysis. To provide a global test for inconsistency, we extend the model across multiple independent loops with one degree of freedom per loop. We develop a new algorithm for identifying independent loops within a network meta-analysis. Our proposed models handle treatments symmetrically, locate inconsistency in loops rather than in nodes or treatment comparisons, and are invariant to choice of reference treatment, making the results less dependent on model parameterization. For testing global inconsistency in network meta-analysis, our global model uses fewer degrees of freedom than the existing design-by-treatment interaction approach and has the potential to increase power. To illustrate our methods, we fit the models to three network meta-analyses varying in size and complexity. Local and global tests for inconsistency are performed and we demonstrate that the global model is invariant to choice of independent loops.

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.

Estimating interactions and subgroup-specific treatment effects in meta-analysis without aggregation bias: A within-trial framework.

Estimation of within-trial interactions in meta-analysis is crucial for reliable assessment of how treatment effects vary across participant subgroups. However, current methods have various limitations. Patients, clinicians and policy-makers need reliable estimates of treatment effects within specific covariate subgroups, on relative and absolute scales, in order to target treatments appropriately-which estimation of an interaction effect does not in itself provide. Also, the focus has been on covariates with only two subgroups, and may exclude relevant data if only a single subgroup is reported. Therefore, in this article we further develop the "within-trial" framework by providing practical methods to (1) estimate within-trial interactions across two or more subgroups; (2) estimate subgroup-specific ("floating") treatment effects that are compatible with the within-trial interactions and make maximum use of available data; and (3) clearly present this data using novel implementation of forest plots. We described the steps involved and apply the methods to two examples taken from previously published meta-analyses, and demonstrate a straightforward implementation in Stata based upon existing code for multivariate meta-analysis. We discuss how the within-trial framework and plots can be utilised with aggregate (or "published") source data, as well as with individual participant data, to effectively demonstrate how treatment effects differ across participant subgroups.

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change.

BACKGROUND: Research overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a case study, we carried out a scoping review to identify and examine duplicated network meta-analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched, in January 2020, for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of the systemic treatments docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1773 and 7844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Variation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. Particularly in fast-moving fields, review authors should be aware of all relevant studies, and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the specific aims or scope of the project, and that reports include information on how the work builds upon existing knowledge. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation.

Association between tocilizumab, sarilumab and all-cause mortality at 28 days in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent prospective meta-analysis demonstrated that interleukin-6 antagonists are associated with lower all-cause mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, compared with usual care or placebo. However, emerging evidence suggests that clinicians are favouring the use of tocilizumab over sarilumab. A new randomised comparison of these agents from the REMAP-CAP trial shows similar effects on in-hospital mortality. Therefore, we initiated a network meta-analysis, to estimate pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo with 28-day mortality, in COVID-19 patients receiving concomitant corticosteroids and ventilation, based on all available direct and indirect evidence. METHODS: Eligible trials randomised hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that compared tocilizumab or sarilumab with usual care or placebo in the prospective meta-analysis or that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab. Data were restricted to patients receiving corticosteroids and either non-invasive or invasive ventilation at randomisation. Pairwise associations between tocilizumab, sarilumab and usual care or placebo for all-cause mortality 28 days after randomisation were estimated using a frequentist contrast-based network meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs), implementing multivariate fixed-effects models that assume consistency between the direct and indirect evidence. FINDINGS: One trial (REMAP-CAP) was identified that directly compared tocilizumab with sarilumab and supplied results on all-cause mortality at 28-days. This network meta-analysis was based on 898 eligible patients (278 deaths) from REMAP-CAP and 3710 eligible patients from 18 trials (1278 deaths) from the prospective meta-analysis. Summary ORs were similar for tocilizumab [0·82 [0·71-0·95, p = 0·008]] and sarilumab [0·80 [0·61-1·04, p = 0·09]] compared with usual care or placebo. The summary OR for 28-day mortality comparing tocilizumab with sarilumab was 1·03 [95%CI 0·81-1·32, p = 0·80]. The p-value for the global test of inconsistency was 0·28. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of either tocilizumab or sarilumab was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality compared with usual care or placebo. The association is not dependent on the choice of interleukin-6 receptor antagonist.

Inhibition of WEE1 Is Effective in TP53- and RAS-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial (FOCUS4-C) Comparing Adavosertib (AZD1775) With Active Monitoring.

PURPOSE: Outcomes in RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remain poor and patients have limited therapeutic options. Adavosertib is the first small-molecule inhibitor of WEE1 kinase. We hypothesized that aberrations in DNA replication seen in mCRC with both RAS and TP53 mutations would sensitize tumors to WEE1 inhibition. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed mCRC were registered into FOCUS4 and tested for TP53 and RAS mutations. Those with both mutations who were stable or responding after 16 weeks of chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 between adavosertib and active monitoring (AM). Adavosertib (250 mg or 300 mg) was taken orally once on days 1-5 and days 8-12 of a 3-week cycle. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), with a target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.5 and 80% power with a one-sided 0.025 significance level. RESULTS: FOCUS4-C was conducted between April 2017 and Mar 2020 during which time 718 patients were registered; 247 (34%) were RAS/TP53-mutant. Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned from 25 UK hospitals (adavosertib = 44; AM = 25). Adavosertib was associated with a PFS improvement over AM (median 3.61 v 1.87 months; HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.68; P = .0022). Overall survival (OS) was not improved with adavosertib versus AM (median 14.0 v 12.8 months; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.94; P = .93). In prespecified subgroup analysis, adavosertib activity was greater in left-sided tumors (HR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.51), versus right-sided (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.56; interaction P = .043). Adavosertib was well-tolerated; grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (9%), nausea (5%), and neutropenia (7%). CONCLUSION: In this phase II randomized trial, adavosertib improved PFS compared with AM and demonstrates potential as a well-tolerated therapy for RAS/TP53-mutant mCRC. Further testing is required in this sizable population of unmet need.

Capecitabine Versus Active Monitoring in Stable or Responding Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After 16 Weeks of First-Line Therapy: Results of the Randomized FOCUS4-N Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

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.

Efficacy and moderators of efficacy of trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapies in children and adolescents: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis from randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapies are the first-line treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents. Nevertheless, open questions remain with respect to efficacy: why does this first-line treatment not work for everyone? For whom does it work best? Individual clinical trials often do not provide sufficient statistical power to examine and substantiate moderating factors. To overcome the issue of limited power, an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials evaluating forms of trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy in children and adolescents aged 6-18 years will be conducted. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will update the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline literature search from 2018 with an electronic search in the databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL with the terms (trauma* OR stress*) AND (cognitive therap* OR psychotherap*) AND (trial* OR review*). Electronic searches will be supplemented by a comprehensive grey literature search in archives and trial registries. Only randomised trials that used any manualised psychological treatment-that is a trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for children and adolescents-will be included. The primary outcome variable will be child-reported posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) post-treatment. Proxy-reports (teacher, parent and caregiver) will be analysed separately. Secondary outcomes will include follow-up assessments of PTSS, PTSD diagnosis and symptoms of comorbid disorders such as depression, anxiety-related and externalising problems. Random-effects models applying restricted maximum likelihood estimation will be used for all analyses. We will use the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to measure risk of bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Contributing study authors need to have permission to share anonymised data. Contributing studies will be required to remove patient identifiers before providing their data. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019151954.

In-depth Clinical and Biological Exploration of DNA Damage Immune Response as a Biomarker for Oxaliplatin Use in Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: The DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay was developed in breast cancer based on biology associated with deficiencies in homologous recombination and Fanconi anemia pathways. A positive DDIR call identifies patients likely to respond to platinum-based chemotherapies in breast and esophageal cancers. In colorectal cancer, there is currently no biomarker to predict response to oxaliplatin. We tested the ability of the DDIR assay to predict response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer and characterized the biology in DDIR-positive colorectal cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Samples and clinical data were assessed according to DDIR status from patients who received either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or 5FUFA (bolus and infusion 5-FU with folinic acid) plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) within the FOCUS trial (n = 361, stage IV), or neoadjuvant FOLFOX in the FOxTROT trial (n = 97, stage II/III). Whole transcriptome, mutation, and IHC data of these samples were used to interrogate the biology of DDIR in colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, DDIR-negative patients displayed a trend toward improved outcome for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy compared with DDIR-positive patients. DDIR positivity was associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) and colorectal molecular subtype 1. Refinement of the DDIR signature, based on overlapping IFN-related chemokine signaling associated with DDIR positivity across colorectal cancer and breast cancer cohorts, further confirmed that the DDIR assay did not have predictive value for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: DDIR positivity does not predict improved response following oxaliplatin treatment in colorectal cancer. However, data presented here suggest the potential of the DDIR assay in identifying immune-rich tumors that may benefit from immune checkpoint blockade, beyond current use of MSI status.

Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear when standard systematic reviews and meta-analyses that rely on published aggregate data (AD) can provide robust clinical conclusions. We aimed to compare the results from a large cohort of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data (IPD) with meta-analyses of published AD, to establish when the latter are most likely to be reliable and when the IPD approach might be required. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used 18 cancer systematic reviews that included IPD meta-analyses: all of those completed and published by the Meta-analysis Group of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit from 1991 to 2010. We extracted or estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and standard errors (SEs) for survival from trial reports and compared these with IPD equivalents at both the trial and meta-analysis level. We also extracted or estimated the number of events. We used paired t tests to assess whether HRs and SEs from published AD differed on average from those from IPD. We assessed agreement, and whether this was associated with trial or meta-analysis characteristics, using the approach of Bland and Altman. The 18 systematic reviews comprised 238 unique trials or trial comparisons, including 37,082 participants. A HR and SE could be generated for 127 trials, representing 53% of the trials and approximately 79% of eligible participants. On average, trial HRs derived from published AD were slightly more in favour of the research interventions than those from IPD (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.95, p = 0.007), but the limits of agreement show that for individual trials, the HRs could deviate substantially. These limits narrowed with an increasing number of participants (p < 0.001) or a greater number (p < 0.001) or proportion (p < 0.001) of events in the AD. On average, meta-analysis HRs from published AD slightly tended to favour the research interventions whether based on fixed-effect (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.97, p = 0.088) or random-effects (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.96, p = 0.044) models, but the limits of agreement show that for individual meta-analyses, agreement was much more variable. These limits tended to narrow with an increasing number (p = 0.077) or proportion of events (p = 0.11) in the AD. However, even when the information size of the AD was large, individual meta-analysis HRs could still differ from their IPD equivalents by a relative 10% in favour of the research intervention to 5% in favour of control. We utilised the results to construct a decision tree for assessing whether an AD meta-analysis includes sufficient information, and when estimates of effects are most likely to be reliable. A lack of power at the meta-analysis level may have prevented us identifying additional factors associated with the reliability of AD meta-analyses, and we cannot be sure that our results are generalisable to all outcomes and effect measures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that HRs from published AD were most likely to agree with those from IPD when the information size was large. Based on these findings, we provide guidance for determining systematically when standard AD meta-analysis will likely generate robust clinical conclusions, and when the IPD approach will add considerable value.

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.

The Accuracy of Clinical Staging of Stage I-IIIa Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Analysis Based on Individual Participant Data.

BACKGROUND: Clinical staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) helps determine the prognosis and treatment of patients; few data exist on the accuracy of clinical staging and the impact on treatment and survival of patients. We assessed whether participant or trial characteristics were associated with clinical staging accuracy as well as impact on survival. METHODS: We used individual participant data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), supplied for a meta-analysis of preoperative chemotherapy (± radiotherapy) vs surgery alone (± radiotherapy) in NSCLC. We assessed agreement between clinical TNM (cTNM) stage at randomization and pathologic TNM (pTNM) stage, for participants in the control group. RESULTS: Results are based on 698 patients who received surgery alone (± radiotherapy) with data for cTNM and pTNM stage. Forty-six percent of cases were cTNM stage I, 23% were cTNM stage II, and 31% were cTNM stage IIIa. cTNM stage disagreed with pTNM stage in 48% of cases, with 34% clinically understaged and 14% clinically overstaged. Agreement was not associated with age (P = .12), sex (P = .62), histology (P = .82), staging method (P = .32), or year of randomization (P = .98). Poorer survival in understaged patients was explained by the underlying pTNM stage. Clinical staging failed to detect T4 disease in 10% of cases and misclassified nodal disease in 38%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates suboptimal agreement between clinical and pathologic staging. Discrepancies between clinical and pathologic T and N staging could have led to different treatment decisions in 10% and 38% of cases, respectively. There is therefore a need for further research into improving staging accuracy for patients with stage I-IIIa NSCLC.

Meta-analysis of Gaussian individual patient data: Two-stage or not two-stage?

Quantitative evidence synthesis through meta-analysis is central to evidence-based medicine. For well-documented reasons, the meta-analysis of individual patient data is held in higher regard than aggregate data. With access to individual patient data, the analysis is not restricted to a "two-stage" approach (combining estimates and standard errors) but can estimate parameters of interest by fitting a single model to all of the data, a so-called "one-stage" analysis. There has been debate about the merits of one- and two-stage analysis. Arguments for one-stage analysis have typically noted that a wider range of models can be fitted and overall estimates may be more precise. The two-stage side has emphasised that the models that can be fitted in two stages are sufficient to answer the relevant questions, with less scope for mistakes because there are fewer modelling choices to be made in the two-stage approach. For Gaussian data, we consider the statistical arguments for flexibility and precision in small-sample settings. Regarding flexibility, several of the models that can be fitted only in one stage may not be of serious interest to most meta-analysis practitioners. Regarding precision, we consider fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis and see that, for a model making certain assumptions, the number of stages used to fit this model is irrelevant; the precision will be approximately equal. Meta-analysts should choose modelling assumptions carefully. Sometimes relevant models can only be fitted in one stage. Otherwise, meta-analysts are free to use whichever procedure is most convenient to fit the identified model.

Direct introduction of nitrogen and oxygen functionality with spatial control using copper catalysis.

Synthetic chemists have spent considerable effort optimizing the synthesis of nitrogen and oxygen containing compounds through a number of methods; however, direct introduction of N- and O-functionality remains challenging. Presented herein is a general method to allow for the simultaneous installation of N- and O-functionality to construct unexplored N-O heterocyclic and amino-alcohol scaffolds. This transformation uses earth abundant copper salts to facilitate the formation of a carbon-centered radical and subsequent carbon-nitrogen bond formation. The intermediate aminoxyl radical is terminated by an intramolecularly appended carbon-centered radical. We have exploited this methodology to also access amino-alcohols with a range of aliphatic and aromatic linkers.

Synthesis of Hindered Anilines: Three-Component Coupling of Arylboronic Acids, tert-Butyl Nitrite, and Alkyl Bromides.

The synthesis of sterically hindered amines has been a significant challenge in organic chemistry. Herein, we report a modular, three-component coupling that constructs two carbon-nitrogen bonds including a sterically hindered Csp3-N bond using commercially available materials. This process uses an earth-abundant copper catalyst and mild reaction conditions, allowing access to a variety of complex aromatic amines.