Claire Vale

Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in invasive bladder cancer. METHODS : We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of updated individual patient data from all available randomised controlled trials comparing local treatment plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus the same local treatment alone. RESULTS Analyses were based on 491 patients from six trials, representing 90% of all patients randomised in cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy trials and 66% of patients from all eligible trials. The power of this meta-analysis is clearly limited. The overall hazard ratio for survival of 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.96, p = 0.019) suggests a 25% relative reduction in the risk of death for chemotherapy compared to that on control. Cox regression suggests that small imbalances in patient characteristics do not bias the results in favour of chemotherapy. However, the impact of trials that stopped early, of patients not receiving allocated treatments or not receiving salvage chemotherapy is less clear. CONCLUSIONS This IPD meta-analysis provides the best evidence currently available on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer. However, at present there is insufficient evidence on which to reliably base treatment decisions. These results highlight the urgent need for further research into the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The results of appropriately sized randomised trials, such as the ongoing EORTC-30994 trial are needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Reducing Uncertainties About the Effects of Chemoradiotherapy for Cervical Cancer : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data From 18 Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND After a 1999 National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical alert was issued, chemoradiotherapy has become widely used in treating women with cervical cancer. Two subsequent systematic reviews found that interpretation of the benefits was complicated, and some important clinical questions were unanswered. PATIENTS AND METHODS We initiated a meta-analysis seeking updated individual patient data from all randomized trials to assess the effect of chemoradiotherapy on all outcomes. We prespecified analyses to investigate whether the effect of chemoradiotherapy differed by trial or patient characteristics. RESULTS On the basis of 13 trials that compared chemoradiotherapy versus the same radiotherapy, there was a 6% improvement in 5-year survival with chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81, P < .001). A larger survival benefit was seen for the two trials in which chemotherapy was administered after chemoradiotherapy. There was a significant survival benefit for both the group of trials that used platinum-based (HR = 0.83, P = .017) and non-platinum-based (HR = 0.77, P = .009) chemoradiotherapy, but no evidence of a difference in the size of the benefit by radiotherapy or chemotherapy dose or scheduling was seen. Chemoradiotherapy also reduced local and distant recurrence and progression and improved disease-free survival. There was a suggestion of a difference in the size of the survival benefit with tumor stage, but not across other patient subgroups. Acute hematologic and GI toxicity was increased with chemoradiotherapy, but data were too sparse for an analysis of late toxicity. CONCLUSION These results endorse the recommendations of the NCI alert, but also demonstrate their applicability to all women and a benefit of non-platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore, although these results suggest an additional benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, this requires testing in randomized trials.

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

Summary 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.

Does anti-EGFR therapy improve outcome in advanced colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MAb) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) have reported conflicting results. METHODS A systematic review of RCTs comparing standard treatments±anti-EGFR MAbs was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were derived for patients with wild-type (WT) and mutant KRAS. Prespecified analyses were conducted for line of treatment, MAb used, chemotherapy regimen, and choice of fluouropyrimidine. Trials using bevacizumab on both arms were included in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS Fourteen eligible RCTs were identified, with results by KRAS status available for ten RCTs. For third line treatment, the effect of anti-EGFR MAbs depended on KRAS status (interaction p<0.00001), with a PFS benefit for patients with WT KRAS only (HR=0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.52, p<0.00001). For first and second line treatment, the effect also appeared to depend on KRAS status (interaction p=0.0003), again with the PFS benefit only for patients with WT KRAS (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90, p<0.0001). Differences between trial results (heterogeneity p=0.02, I(2)=62%) were best explained by the fluouropyrimidine used, with PFS benefits confined to trials combining MAbs alongside 5FU-based chemotherapy (HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.85, p<0.00001). There was no evidence of a PFS benefit when MAbs were given with bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS For aCRC patients with WT KRAS, there are clear benefits of anti-EGFR MAbs in the third line and in the first and second line, when used alongside infusional 5FU-based regimens. However, there is no benefit for patients with KRAS mutations.

Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use

Jayne Tierney and colleagues offer guidance on how to spot a well-designed and well-conducted individual participant data meta-analysis.

Involvement of consumers in studies run by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit: results of a survey.

BackgroundWe aimed to establish levels of consumer involvement in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses and other studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Trials Unit across the range of research programs, predominantly in cancer and HIV.MethodsStaff responsible for studies that were included in a Unit Progress Report (MRC CTU, April 2009) were asked to complete a semi-structured questionnaire survey regarding consumer involvement. This was defined as active involvement of consumers as partners in the research process and not as subjects of that research. The electronic questionnaires combined open and closed questions, intended to capture quantitative and qualitative information on whether studies had involved consumers; types of activities undertaken; recruitment and support; advantages and disadvantages of involvement and its perceived impact on aspects of the research.ResultsBetween October 2009 and April 2010, 138 completed questionnaires (86%) were returned. Studies had been conducted over a 20 year period from 1989, and around half were in cancer; 30% in HIV and 20% were in other disease areas including arthritis, tuberculosis and blood transfusion medicine. Forty-three studies (31%) had some consumer involvement, most commonly as members of trial management groups (TMG) [88%]. A number of positive impacts on both the research and the researcher were identified. Researchers generally felt involvement was worthwhile and some felt that consumer involvement had improved the credibility of the research. Benefits in design and quality, trial recruitment, dissemination and decision making were also perceived. Researchers felt they learned from consumer involvement, albeit that there were some barriers.ConclusionsWhilst most researchers identified benefits of involving consumers, most of studies included in the survey had no involvement. Information from this survey will inform the development of a unit policy on consumer involvement, to guide future research conducted within the MRC Clinical Trials Unit and beyond.

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.

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.

Should Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Be Considered for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Wild Type EGFR? Two Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials

Guidance concerning tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for patients with wild type epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after first-line treatment is unclear. We assessed the effect of TKIs as second-line therapy and maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy in two systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on patients without EGFR mutations. Systematic searches were completed and data extracted from eligible randomized controlled trials. Three analytical approaches were used to maximize available data. Fourteen trials of second-line treatment (4388 patients) were included. Results showed the effect of TKIs on progression-free survival (PFS) depended on EGFR status (interaction hazard ratio [HR], 2.69; P = .004). Chemotherapy benefited patients with wild type EGFR (HR, 1.31; P < .0001), TKIs benefited patients with mutations (HR, 0.34; P = .0002). Based on 12 trials (85% of randomized patients) the benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .014). Six trials of maintenance therapy (2697 patients) were included. Results showed that although the effect of TKIs on PFS depended on EGFR status (interaction HR, 3.58; P < .0001), all benefited from TKIs (wild type EGFR: HR, 0.82; P = .01; mutated EGFR: HR, 0.24; P < .0001). There was a suggestion that benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .11). Chemotherapy should be standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and wild type EGFR. TKIs might be unsuitable for unselected patients. TKIs appear to benefit all patients compared with no active treatment as maintenance treatment, however, direct comparisons with chemotherapy are needed.

Models and impact of patient and public involvement in studies carried out by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London: findings from ten case studies.

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London varies by research type and setting. We developed a series of case studies of PPI to document and share good practice.MethodsWe used purposive sampling to identify studies representing the scope of research at the MRC CTU and different approaches to PPI. We carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and patient representatives. Interview notes were analysed descriptively to categorise the main aims and motivations for involvement; activities undertaken; their impact on the studies and lessons learned.ResultsWe conducted 19 interviews about ten case studies, comprising one systematic review, one observational study and 8 randomised controlled trials in HIV and cancer. Studies were either open or completed, with start dates between 2003 and 2011. Interviews took place between March and November 2014 and were updated in summer 2015 where there had been significant developments in the study (i.e. if the study had presented results subsequent to the interview taking place). A wide range of PPI models, including representation on trial committees or management groups, community engagement, one-off task-focused activities, patient research partners and participant involvement had been used. Overall, interviewees felt that PPI had a positive impact, leading to improvements, for example in the research question; study design; communication with potential participants; study recruitment; confidence to carry out or complete a study; interpretation and communication of results; and influence on future research.ConclusionsA range of models of PPI can benefit clinical studies. Researchers should consider different approaches to PPI, based on the desired impact and the people they want to involve. Use of multiple models may increase the potential impacts of PPI in clinical research.