In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, time-to-event outcomes are most appropriately analysed using hazard ratios (HRs). In the absence of individual patient data (IPD), methods are available to ...obtain HRs and/or associated statistics by carefully manipulating published or other summary data. Awareness and adoption of these methods is somewhat limited, perhaps because they are published in the statistical literature using statistical notation.
This paper aims to 'translate' the methods for estimating a HR and associated statistics from published time-to-event-analyses into less statistical and more practical guidance and provide a corresponding, easy-to-use calculations spreadsheet, to facilitate the computational aspects.
A wider audience should be able to understand published time-to-event data in individual trial reports and use it more appropriately in meta-analysis. When faced with particular circumstances, readers can refer to the relevant sections of the paper. The spreadsheet can be used to assist them in carrying out the calculations.
The methods cannot circumvent the potential biases associated with relying on published data for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. However, this practical guide should improve the quality of the analysis and subsequent interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include time-to-event outcomes.
In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals "to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to ...research and develop safe and innovative medicines". The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing - making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use - is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council's Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic.
Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive ...design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose Adjuvant therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths from this disease. Surrogates for overall survival (OS) could expedite the ...evaluation of new adjuvant therapies. Methods By June 2013, 102 completed or ongoing randomized trials were identified and individual patient data were collected from 28 trials with 28,905 patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were determined for 21,140 patients from 24 trials and 12,712 patients from 19 trials, respectively. We evaluated the surrogacy of DFS and MFS for OS by using a two-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of an intermediate clinical end point with OS and the correlation of treatment effects on both the intermediate clinical end point and OS. Results Trials enrolled patients from 1987 to 2011. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 45% of 21,140 men and 45% of 12,712 men experienced a DFS and MFS event, respectively. For DFS and MFS, 61% and 90% of the patients, respectively, were from radiation trials, and 63% and 66%, respectively, had high-risk disease. At the patient level, Kendall's τ correlation with OS was 0.85 and 0.91 for DFS and MFS, respectively. At the trial level, R
was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.88) from weighted linear regression of 8-year OS rates versus 5-year DFS and MFS rates, respectively. Treatment effects-measured by log hazard ratios-for the surrogates and OS were well correlated ( R
, 0.73 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82 for DFS and 0.92 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95 for MFS). Conclusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a significant risk of death from prostate cancer.
Many trials are evaluating therapies for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).
To systematically review trials of prostate radiotherapy.
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.
We included trials that randomised men to prostate radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or ADT only.
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.
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.
Prostate radiotherapy should be considered for men with mHSPC with a low metastatic burden.
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.
This prospectively designed systematic review showed that prostate radiotherapy did not improve survival in unselected men. A difference in effect by metastatic burden was evident across included trials and outcomes; 3-yr survival increased by 7% in men with fewer than five bone metastases.
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.
It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to ...prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches.
We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen PSA ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis.
We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 77·6%) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75–1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI −2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I2=42%).
This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects.
UK Medical Research Council.
Abiraterone acetate received licencing for use in only “high-risk” metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC) following the LATITUDE trial findings. However, a “risk”-related effect was not ...seen in the STAMPEDE trial. There remains uncertainty as to whether men with LATITUDE “low-risk” M1 disease benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with abiraterone acetate and prednisolone (AAP).
Evaluation of heterogeneity of effect between LATITUDE high- and low-risk M1 prostate cancer patients receiving ADT + AAP in the STAMPEDE trial.
A post hoc subgroup analysis of the 2017 STAMPEDE “abiraterone comparison”. Staging scans for M1 patients contemporaneously randomised to ADT or ADT + AAP within the STAMPEDE trial were evaluated centrally and blind to treatment assignment. Stratification was by risk according to the criteria set out in the LATITUDE trial. Exploratory subgroup stratification incorporated the CHAARTED criteria.
The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome measure was failure-free survival (FFS). Further exploratory analysis evaluated clinical skeletal-related events, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate cancer-specific death. Standard Cox-regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were employed for analysis.
A total of 901 M1 STAMPEDE patients were evaluated after exclusions. Of the patients, 428 (48%) were identified as having a low risk and 473 (52%) a high risk. Patients receiving ADT + AAP had significantly improved OS (low-risk hazard ratio HR: 0.66, 95% confidence interval or CI 0.44–0.98) and FFS (low-risk HR: 0.24, 95% CI 0.17–0.33) compared with ADT alone. Heterogeneity of effect was not seen between low- and high-risk groups for OS or FFS. For OS benefit in low risk, the number needed to treat was four times greater than that for high risk. However, this was not observed for the other measured endpoints.
Men with mHNPC gain treatment benefit from ADT + AAP irrespective of risk stratification for “risk” or “volume”.
Coadministration of abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with prolonged overall survival and disease control, compared with ADT alone, in all men with metastatic disease starting hormone therapy for the first time.
A significant treatment benefit is observed in men with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy combined with abiraterone acetate and prednisolone, irrespective of being designated as having a “low” or a “high” risk by the current treatment criteria. This consistent result applies to all efficacy outcome measures.
Summary Background The aim of this trial was to compare dose-escalated conformal radiotherapy with control-dose conformal radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Preliminary findings ...reported after 5 years of follow-up showed that escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy improved biochemical progression-free survival. Based on the sample size calculation, we planned to analyse overall survival when 190 deaths occurred; this target has now been reached, after a median 10 years of follow-up. Methods RT01 was a phase 3, open-label, international, randomised controlled trial enrolling men with histologically confirmed T1b–T3a, N0, M0 prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen of less than 50 ng/mL. Patients were randomly assigned centrally in a 1:1 ratio, using a computer-based minimisation algorithm stratifying by risk of seminal vesicle invasion and centre to either the control group (64 Gy in 32 fractions, the standard dose at the time the trial was designed) or the escalated-dose group (74 Gy in 37 fractions). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. All patients received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for 3–6 months before the start of conformal radiotherapy, which continued until the end of conformal radiotherapy. The coprimary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival and overall survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment-related side-effects have been reported previously. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN47772397. Findings Between Jan 7, 1998, and Dec 20, 2001, 862 men were registered and 843 subsequently randomly assigned: 422 to the escalated-dose group and 421 to the control group. As of Aug 2, 2011, 236 deaths had occurred: 118 in each group. Median follow-up was 10·0 years (IQR 9·1–10·8). Overall survival at 10 years was 71% (95% CI 66–75) in each group (hazard ratio HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·77–1·28; p=0·96). Biochemical progression or progressive disease occurred in 391 patients (221 57% in the control group and 170 43% in the escalated-dose group). At 10 years, biochemical progression-free survival was 43% (95% CI 38–48) in the control group and 55% (50–61) in the escalated-dose group (HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·56–0·84; p=0·0003). Interpretation At a median follow-up of 10 years, escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy showed an advantage in biochemical progression-free survival, but this advantage did not translate into an improvement in overall survival. These efficacy data for escalated-dose treatment must be weighed against the increase in acute and late toxicities associated with the escalated dose and emphasise the importance of use of appropriate modern radiotherapy methods to reduce side-effects. Funding UK Medical Research Council.
The timing of randomization should be considered carefully in the context of each trial because it has implications for the particular research question answered. In most instances, randomization ...should be delayed until as close as practically possible to the moment of intervention. In some cases, early randomization may offer certain advantages, but trialists should balance these, including any administrative complexity or inconvenience, against the risk of avoidable protocol violations and avoidable drop out.
PDF
