Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiong, Tengbin, Turner, Rebecca M, Wei, Yinghui, Neal, David E, Lyratzopoulos, Georgios, Higgins, Julian P T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4024605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833678
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285
_version_ 1782316665941262336
author Xiong, Tengbin
Turner, Rebecca M
Wei, Yinghui
Neal, David E
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Higgins, Julian P T
author_facet Xiong, Tengbin
Turner, Rebecca M
Wei, Yinghui
Neal, David E
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Higgins, Julian P T
author_sort Xiong, Tengbin
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4024605
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40246052014-05-21 Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis Xiong, Tengbin Turner, Rebecca M Wei, Yinghui Neal, David E Lyratzopoulos, Georgios Higgins, Julian P T BMJ Open Research Methods 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4024605/ /pubmed/24833678 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Research Methods
Xiong, Tengbin
Turner, Rebecca M
Wei, Yinghui
Neal, David E
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Higgins, Julian P T
Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
title Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
title_full Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
title_short Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
title_sort comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4024605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833678
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285
work_keys_str_mv AT xiongtengbin comparativeefficacyandsafetyoftreatmentsforlocalisedprostatecanceranapplicationofnetworkmetaanalysis
AT turnerrebeccam comparativeefficacyandsafetyoftreatmentsforlocalisedprostatecanceranapplicationofnetworkmetaanalysis
AT weiyinghui comparativeefficacyandsafetyoftreatmentsforlocalisedprostatecanceranapplicationofnetworkmetaanalysis
AT nealdavide comparativeefficacyandsafetyoftreatmentsforlocalisedprostatecanceranapplicationofnetworkmetaanalysis
AT lyratzopoulosgeorgios comparativeefficacyandsafetyoftreatmentsforlocalisedprostatecanceranapplicationofnetworkmetaanalysis
AT higginsjulianpt comparativeefficacyandsafetyoftreatmentsforlocalisedprostatecanceranapplicationofnetworkmetaanalysis