Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of biomarkers for ovarian cancer: Protocol for an overview, evidence mapping, and adjusted indirect comparisons.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest gynecological diseases and the annual mortality of ovarian cancer continues to rise. The prognosis of ovarian cancer is poor because it is prone to early metastasis during progression. Therefore, early diagnosis of ovarian cancer is very important. Some systematic reviews have evaluated the diagnostic value of different biomarkers for ovarian cancer. However, there is no consensus in the conclusions, and some are even contradictory. This study aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of available systematic reviews and to find an optimal biomarker for diagnosing ovarian cancer.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant systematic reviews from inception to February 2019. We included systematic reviews that include randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, or cohort studies as long as the systematic reviews evaluated the diagnostic performance of biomarkers for ovarian cancer. The methodological quality will be assessed using assessment of multiple systematic reviews-2 checklist, and the reporting quality will be assessed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis diagnostic test accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) checklist. The pairwise meta-analysis and indirect comparisons will be performed using STATA (13.0; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX).

Results

The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Conclusion

This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of different biomarkers for diagnosing ovarian cancer.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019125880.

SUBMITTER: Hua J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6504260 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic performance of biomarkers for ovarian cancer: Protocol for an overview, evidence mapping, and adjusted indirect comparisons.

Hua Jinyong J Liu Jing J Hua Mengge M Cai Runjin R Li Muyang M Wang Jing J Wang Jiancheng J

Medicine 20190501 18

<h4>Background</h4>Ovarian cancer is one of the deadliest gynecological diseases and the annual mortality of ovarian cancer continues to rise. The prognosis of ovarian cancer is poor because it is prone to early metastasis during progression. Therefore, early diagnosis of ovarian cancer is very important. Some systematic reviews have evaluated the diagnostic value of different biomarkers for ovarian cancer. However, there is no consensus in the conclusions, and some are even contradictory. This ...[more]

PMID: 31045839

Similar Datasets

Project description:Standard methods for indirect comparisons and network meta-analysis are based on aggregate data, with the key assumption that there is no difference between the trials in the distribution of effect-modifying variables. Methods which relax this assumption are becoming increasingly common for submissions to reimbursement agencies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). These methods use individual patient data from a subset of trials to form population-adjusted indirect comparisons between treatments, in a specific target population. Recently proposed population adjustment methods include the Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) and the Simulated Treatment Comparison (STC). Despite increasing popularity, MAIC and STC remain largely untested. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity about exactly how and when they should be applied in practice, and even whether the results are relevant to the decision problem. There is therefore a real and present risk that the assumptions being made in one submission to a reimbursement agency are fundamentally different to-or even incompatible with-the assumptions being made in another for the same indication. We describe the assumptions required for population-adjusted indirect comparisons, and demonstrate how these may be used to generate comparisons in any given target population. We distinguish between anchored and unanchored comparisons according to whether a common comparator arm is used or not. Unanchored comparisons make much stronger assumptions, which are widely regarded as infeasible. We provide recommendations on how and when population adjustment methods should be used, and the supporting analyses that are required to provide statistically valid, clinically meaningful, transparent and consistent results for the purposes of health technology appraisal. Simulation studies are needed to examine the properties of population adjustment methods and their robustness to breakdown of assumptions.

Project description:BackgroundAnchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.MethodsA modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.ResultsDespite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.ConclusionsTwo-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial.

Project description:BackgroundBrexanolone injection, the first therapy approved by the US FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (PPD) in adults, has been shown to produce a significantly greater decrease in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) total score than placebo in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with PPD.ObjectivesGiven the rapid effect of brexanolone injection (within 60 h) sustained throughout the length of the trials (30 days), we sought to compare its efficacy data against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the class of antidepressants most commonly prescribed for PPD, using HAM-D and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) outcomes from currently available RCTs.MethodsWe extracted data from 26 studies identified in a systematic literature review of pharmacological and pharmacological/nonpharmacological combination therapies in PPD. Six studies were suitable to form evidence networks through which to perform indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) of HAM-D and EPDS outcomes between brexanolone and SSRIs. Having assessed the comparability and suitability of the available evidence for analysis, we discovered significant heterogeneity in the study designs, most notably in the placebo arms of the trials. We therefore conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) between brexanolone and the placebo arms of comparator studies, subsequently using the MAIC results of brexanolone versus placebo, and results for SSRIs versus placebo, to form ITCs of brexanolone versus SSRIs at three separate time points-day 3, week 4 and last observation. ITCs were calculated as the differences in change from baseline (CFB) in HAM-D and, separately, CFB in EPDS, between treatments, and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsFor all time points, MAICs showed larger differences in CFB for brexanolone compared with SSRIs. Differences (95% CIs) between brexanolone and SSRIs were 12.79 (8.04-17.53) [day 3], 5.87 (- 1.62 to 13.37) [week 4] and 0.97 (- 6.35 to 8.30) [last observation] for the HAM-D. For the EPDS, the differences in CFB were 7.98 (5.32-10.64) [day 3], 6.35 (3.13-9.57) [week 4] and 4.05 (0.79-7.31) [last observation]. Other analytical approaches are also presented to demonstrate the similarity of results, using a network meta-analysis approach, and the importance of using the MAIC method to control for the important heterogeneity between placebo arms.ConclusionsAcknowledging the limitations of ITCs and this evidence base, when compared with SSRIs, these analyses suggest that brexanolone demonstrated larger differences in CFB for both patient- and clinician-reported PPD outcomes and at all investigated time points after adjusting for differences between placebos in the included studies.

Project description:No head-to-head trials comparing recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII) products currently exist. This was a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) study of efficacy of BAY 81-8973 with antihemophilic factor (recombinant) plasma/albumin-free method (rAHF-PFM) and turoctocog alfa for the prophylaxis of severe hemophilia A.A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials of rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa. Comparisons were conducted using BAY 81-8973 individual patient data (IPD) from LEOPOLD trials and published data from rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa trials. Differences in outcome reporting were reconciled using transformation of BAY 81-8973 IPD. Patients in pooled LEOPOLD trials were weighted to match baseline characteristics for rAHF-PFM or turoctocog alfa trials using MAICs. After matching, annualized bleed rates (ABRs) were compared using weighted t-tests.Two rAHF-PFM trials and one turoctocog alfa trial were identified. In these trials, rFVIIIs were dosed thrice weekly or every other day; in LEOPOLD trials, BAY 81-8973 was dosed twice- or thrice weekly. Three MAICs were conducted because the two rAHF-PFM trials calculated ABRs differently, matching for age, race, and weight (turoctocog alfa only). BAY 81-8973 had similar ABR of all bleeds vs rAHF-PFM (two trials: 4.8 vs 6.3, 1.9 vs 1.8 [square root transform]) and lower ABR of spontaneous bleeds and trauma bleeds (2.6 vs 4.1, 2.1 vs 4.7; both P<0.05). BAY 81-8973 showed lower ABR of all bleeds and spontaneous bleeds vs turoctocog alfa (4.3 vs 6.5, 2.8 vs 4.3; both P<0.05) and similar ABR of trauma bleeds (1.5 vs 1.6). In subgroup analysis, twice-weekly BAY 81-8973 had similar ABRs of all bleeds, spontaneous bleeds, and trauma bleeds compared to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa.This indirect comparison found that prophylaxis with BAY 81-8973, even including the lower frequency of two times a week and lower factor VIII consumption, has efficacy comparable to rAHF-PFM and turoctocog alfa, which were dosed thrice weekly or every other day. The use of IPD enabled adjustments for differences in calculation of ABRs and population characteristics between trials.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of biomarkers for ovarian cancer: Protocol for an overview, evidence mapping, and adjusted indirect comparisons.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Prospero registration number

Publications

Diagnostic performance of biomarkers for ovarian cancer: Protocol for an overview, evidence mapping, and adjusted indirect comparisons.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets