TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer
T2 - An application of network meta-analysis
AU - Xiong, Tengbin
AU - Turner, Rebecca M.
AU - Wei, Yinghui
AU - Neal, David E.
AU - Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
AU - Higgins, Julian P.T.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - 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 metaanalysis 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 allcause 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.
AB - 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 metaanalysis 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 allcause 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84901492219
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 24833678
AN - SCOPUS:84901492219
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 4
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 5
M1 - e004285
ER -