Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Context

There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer.

Objective

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments for patients with localised prostate cancer.

Design

Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate comparative ORs, and a score (0-100%) that, for a given outcome, reflects average rank order of superiority of each treatment compared against all others, using the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) statistic.

Data sources

Electronic searches of MEDLINE without language restriction.

Study selection

Randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different primary treatments (48 papers from 21 randomised trials included 7350 men).

Data extraction

2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

Results

Comparative efficacy and safety evidence was available for prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy (different types and regimens), observational management and cryotherapy, but not high-intensity focused ultrasound. There was no evidence of superiority for any of the compared treatments in respect of all-cause mortality after 5?years. Cryotherapy was associated with less gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity than radiotherapy (SUCRA: 99% and 77% for gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively).

Conclusions

The limited available evidence suggests that different treatments may be optimal for different efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of informed patient choice and shared decision-making about treatment modality and acceptable trade-offs between different outcomes. More trial evidence is required to reduce uncertainty. Network meta-analysis may be useful to optimise the power of evidence synthesis studies once data from new randomised controlled studies in this field are published in the future.

SUBMITTER: Xiong T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4024605 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis.

Xiong Tengbin T Turner Rebecca M RM Wei Yinghui Y Neal David E DE Lyratzopoulos Georgios G Higgins Julian P T JP

BMJ open 20140515 5

<h4>Context</h4>There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments for patients with localised prostate cancer.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate comparative ORs, and a score (0-100%) that, for a given outcome, reflects average rank order of superiority of each treatment compared against all others, using the Sur ...[more]

PMID: 24833678

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCumulative exposure to one or more anticholinergic medications ("anticholinergic burden") is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, particularly among older individuals. Mirabegron, an oral selective β3-adrenergic receptor agonist, has demonstrated efficacy in managing the symptoms of overactive bladder without contributing to anticholinergic burden. However, it is not known whether the favorable safety profile of mirabegron relative to antimuscarinics varies with increasing age among a patient population who may have a high anticholinergic burden.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to indirectly compare the safety and efficacy profile of mirabegron relative to antimuscarinics in older adults with overactive bladder.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that reported safety and efficacy endpoints among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Identified randomized controlled trials were subsequently synthesized via a network meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines in designing, performing, and reporting the literature review were followed. In line with current best practices, the network meta-analysis was conducted using a Bayesian approach and according to the overall general guidance for evidence synthesis developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision support unit. Estimates of relative safety were assessed via the odds ratio and estimates of relative efficacy were assessed via means and credible intervals.ResultsA total of 3078 abstracts, 300 of which underwent full-text screening, were identified using the search criteria. Twenty articles reporting on 21 randomized controlled trials were eligible for data extraction and synthesis. Following review, five safety and five efficacy endpoints were considered for inclusion in the network meta-analysis. Regarding findings typical of anticholinergic exposure in older adults, mirabegron was not associated with an increased odds of dry mouth (odds ratio 95% credible interval 0.76 [0.26-2.37]) or constipation (1.08 [0.39-3.02]) relative to placebo, whereas antimuscarinics were strongly associated with these events (odds ratio range 3.78-7.85 and 2.12-4.66, respectively). In this older population, mirabegron was associated with a similar odds of experiencing adverse event-related treatment discontinuations relative to placebo (0.99 [0.57-1.70]), while the odds of experiencing an adverse event-related treatment discontinuation for antimuscarinics had a range of 1.14-3.03 (in most cases, the association was mild). No increased odds of experiencing overall treatment-emergent adverse events was observed for mirabegron or antimuscarinics (odds ratio range 1.25-1.55), apart from fesoterodine (2.23 [1.37-3.37]). Finally, a similar treatment effect was observed across all efficacy endpoints between mirabegron and antimuscarinics in this older population.ConclusionsThis study indicates that the safety and efficacy profile of mirabegron remains favorable compared with antimuscarinics among older adults. This includes safety outcomes typically associated with anticholinergic burden, which were less frequently observed in patients treated with mirabegron.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). DESIGN:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of approved treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO were identified from an updated systematic review. SETTING:A Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs of treatments for macular oedema secondary to BRVO. INTERVENTIONS:Ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata, aflibercept 2 mg monthly (2q4), dexamethasone 0.7 mg implant, laser photocoagulation, ranibizumab+laser, or sham intervention. Bevacizumab and triamcinolone were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES:Efficacy outcomes were mean change in best corrected visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale) and the percentage of patients gaining ? 15 letters. Safety outcome was the percentage of patients with increased intraocular pressure (IOP)/ocular hypertension (OH). RESULTS:8 RCTs were identified for inclusion with 1743 adult patients. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment at month 6 or 12 based on letters gained was 54% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 30% for aflibercept, 16% for ranibizumab plus laser (adjunctive or prompt), and 0% for dexamethasone implant, laser or sham. The probability of being the most efficacious treatment for patients gaining ? 15 letters was 39% for aflibercept, 35% for ranibizumab monotherapy, 24% for ranibizumab plus laser, 2% for dexamethasone implant, and less than 1% for laser or sham. There was no statistical difference between ranibizumab monotherapy and aflibercept for letters gained (+1.4 letters for ranibizumab vs aflibercept with 95% credible interval (CrI) of -5.2 to +8.5 letters) or the OR for gaining ? 15 letters: 1.06 (95% CrI 0.16 to 8.94)). Dexamethasone implant was associated with significantly higher IOP/OH than antivascular endothelial growth factor agents (OR 13.1 (95% CrI 1.7 to 116.9)). CONCLUSIONS:There was no statistically significant difference between ranibizumab and aflibercept.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to 31 March 2019. STUDY SELECTION:Randomised controlled trials comparing vapourisation, resection, and enucleation of the prostate using monopolar, bipolar, or various laser systems (holmium, thulium, potassium titanyl phosphate, or diode) as surgical treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The primary outcomes were the maximal flow rate (Qmax) and international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) at 12 months after surgical treatment. Secondary outcomes were Qmax and IPSS values at 6, 24, and 36 months after surgical treatment; perioperative parameters; and surgical complications. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted the study data and performed quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The effect sizes were summarised using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for binary outcomes. Frequentist approach to the network meta-analysis was used to estimate comparative effects and safety. Ranking probabilities of each treatment were also calculated. RESULTS:109 trials with a total of 13?676 participants were identified. Nine surgical treatments were evaluated. Enucleation achieved better Qmax and IPSS values than resection and vapourisation methods at six and 12 months after surgical treatment, and the difference maintained up to 24 and 36 months after surgical treatment. For Qmax at 12 months after surgical treatment, the best three methods compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) were bipolar enucleation (mean difference 2.42 mL/s (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 3.73)), diode laser enucleation (1.86 (-0.17 to 3.88)), and holmium laser enucleation (1.07 (0.07 to 2.08)). The worst performing method was diode laser vapourisation (-1.90 (-5.07 to 1.27)). The results of IPSS at 12 months after treatment were similar to Qmax at 12 months after treatment. The best three methods, versus monopolar TURP, were diode laser enucleation (mean difference -1.00 (-2.41 to 0.40)), bipolar enucleation (0.87 (-1.80 to 0.07)), and holmium laser enucleation (-0.84 (-1.51 to 0.58)). The worst performing method was diode laser vapourisation (1.30 (-1.16 to 3.76)). Eight new methods were better at controlling bleeding than monopolar TURP, resulting in a shorter catheterisation duration, reduced postoperative haemoglobin declination, fewer clot retention events, and lower blood transfusion rate. However, short term transient urinary incontinence might still be a concern for enucleation methods, compared with resection methods (odds ratio 1.92, 1.39 to 2.65). No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected in primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION:Eight new endoscopic surgical methods for benign prostatic hyperplasia appeared to be superior in safety compared with monopolar TURP. Among these new treatments, enucleation methods showed better Qmax and IPSS values than vapourisation and resection methods. STUDY REGISTRATION:CRD42018099583.

Project description:PurposeThis systematic review with network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of currently licensed second-line treatments in patients with late stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with advanced/metastatic NSCLC receiving second/third line treatments were screened. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; Web of Science) from January, 2000 to July, 2017. Two reviewers screened bibliographic records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and drug-related grade 3-5 adverse-events (AEs). We pooled study-specific hazard ratios (HR; for OS and PFS) and risk ratios (RR; for AEs) using conventional and network-meta-analyses, and ranked interventions by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.FindingsWe included 11 RCTs (7,581 participants) comparing nine drugs. All drugs except for erlotinib significantly improved OS compared to docetaxel. Nivolumab was the highest ranking drug followed by atezolizumab and pembrolizumab. There was no significant difference in OS across these three drugs (HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79, 1.21 for nivolumab vs atezolizumab; HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.77, 1.25 for nivolumab vs pembrolizumab). For PFS, ramucirumab + docetaxel and nivolumab were the drugs with the highest ranking. All interventions except ramucirumab + docetaxel had a reduced risk for severe drug-related AEs vs. docetaxel. Of the drugs with the highest ranking on AEs, nivolumab was significantly safer compared to atezolizumab (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38, 0.79) or pembrolizumab (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.81).ImplicationsNivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab exhibited superior benefit/risk balance compared to other licensed drugs used late stage NSCLC. Our results indicate that the use of immunotherapies in people diagnosed with non-specific late stage NSCLC should be promoted. The use of docetaxel may now be judged irrelevant as a comparator intervention for approval of new drugs for second line treatment of NSCLC.Study registration numberPROSPERO CRD42017065928.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, 6-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has been recommended as the preferred adjuvant treatment against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer patients.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meeting libraries from inception to November 2019. Regarding survival and tolerability, randomized controlled trials comparing different adjuvant systemic regimens against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer were eligible. Disease-free survival was primary endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model, and relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by p score.ResultsA total of 30 trials were included, corresponding to 54,109 patients. Regarding disease-free survival, none of the analyzed regimens displayed significant superiority against common comparator 6-month capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX), while 12-month [network hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 (0.60-1.10); 0.79 (0.57-1.10)] and 3-month XELOX [0.95 (0.86-1.04); 0.93 (0.83-1.05)] were top-ranking regimens showing non-inferiority among overall and stage 3 patients. Moreover, by pairwise meta-analysis, 3-month XELOX demonstrated significant superiority against 6-month XELOX among low-risk stage 3 patients [pairwise HR 0.78 (0.63-0.97)]. Concerning adverse events, 3-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly better than the 6-month counterpart with respect to peripheral sensory neuropathy, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. The 12-month capecitabine monotherapy failed to display non-inferiority among other major adverse events.ConclusionsThe 3-month XELOX treatment could be an alternative option of the 6-month regimen among low-risk stage 3 patients. Among high-risk stage 3 patients, 6-month oxaliplatin-based regimens still seem more competitive. In addition, clinical application of 12-month capecitabine monotherapy should be cautious, despite its top rankings, especially among non-Asian countries.

Project description:Purpose:Numerous medical strategies have been proposed for the treatment of thyroid eye disease (TED); however, the best methods for standard treatment are still a matter of controversy. The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to integrate previous evidence to create hierarchies of comparative efficacy of eleven commonly used medical treatments for TED. Methods:A comprehensive search of electronic scientific literature databases was performed and the data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment outcomes for patients with active TED were selected. Treatment strategies included in this network meta-analysis were intravenous glucocorticoids (IVGC), oral glucocorticoids (OGC), orbital injection of glucocorticoids (OIGC), orbital radiotherapy (OR), intravenous glucocorticoids combined with orbital radiotherapy (IVGC + OR), oral glucocorticoids combined with orbital radiotherapy (OGC + OR), rituximab (RTX), somatostatin analogs, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), teprotumumab, and cyclosporine. The outcomes were response rate, mean difference in proptosis reduction, and reduction in disease activity. A random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequent method was conducted in STATA. Results:Twenty-three studies comprising a total of 1047 patients were included in the analysis. Inconsistency plots showed heterogeneity in the IVGC-Placebo-RTX loop to some extent (RoR = 8.029, P=0.075). Rankings of response rates were as follows: IVGC + OR, teprotumumab, IVGC, OGC + OR, RTX, OIGC, OR, IVIG, OGC, somatostatin, placebo, and cyclosporine. The rank probability analysis of proptosis reduction showed that teprotumumab was the most effective, followed by IVGC, IVGC + OR, OIGC, OGC, OGC + OR, OR, somatostatin, cyclosporine, and placebo. Conclusions:IVGC, alone or combination with OR, and teprotumumab should be preferred as the most effective strategies for active moderate to severe TED. Teprotumumab showed profound effect on proptosis reduction. OIGC, OR, and somatostatin analogs showed some statistical benefit and can be employed as second-line treatment strategies. RTX is a promising biologic agent, but more RCTs are required to define its appropriate role in treating TED.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis.

Context

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets