非小细胞肺癌术后放疗。

Sarah Burdett, Larysa Rydzewska, Jayne Tierney, David Fisher, Mahesh Kb Parmar, Rodrigo Arriagada, Jean Pierre Pignon, Cecile Le Pechoux
{"title":"非小细胞肺癌术后放疗。","authors":"Sarah Burdett, Larysa Rydzewska, Jayne Tierney, David Fisher, Mahesh Kb Parmar, Rodrigo Arriagada, Jean Pierre Pignon, Cecile Le Pechoux","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD002142.pub4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.</p>","PeriodicalId":81727,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland","volume":"110 1","pages":"CD002142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5642866/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Burdett, Larysa Rydzewska, Jayne Tierney, David Fisher, Mahesh Kb Parmar, Rodrigo Arriagada, Jean Pierre Pignon, Cecile Le Pechoux\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD002142.pub4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":81727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"CD002142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5642866/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002142.pub4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002142.pub4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:术后放疗(PORT)在治疗完全切除的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者中的作用尚不明确。研究人员对随机对照试验(RCT)中的现有证据进行了系统回顾和个体参与者数据荟萃分析。这些结果于 2013 年首次发表在《肺癌》杂志上:评估PORT对完全切除的NSCLC患者的生存率和复发率的影响。研究预定义的患者亚群是否更多或更少地从PORT中获益:我们对MEDLINE和CANCERLIT的检索(1965年至2016年7月8日)进行了补充,并从试验登记册、相关会议记录的手工检索以及与试验者和组织的讨论中获得了信息:我们纳入了手术治疗与手术加放疗治疗的试验,条件是这些试验采用事先不知道治疗分配的方法对NSCLC参与者进行随机分配:我们利用所有随机试验中参与者的最新信息进行了定量荟萃分析。我们从试验负责人处获得了所有参与者的数据。我们获得了关于生存期和最后一次随访日期的最新个体参与者数据(IPD),以及关于治疗分配、随机化日期、年龄、性别、组织细胞类型、分期、结节状态和表现状态的详细信息。为避免潜在偏倚,我们要求提供所有随机参与者的信息,包括研究者原始分析中排除的参与者。我们以生存率为终点进行了所有意向治疗分析:我们确定了 14 项评估手术与手术加放疗的试验。我们对 2343 名参与者(1511 人死亡)进行了分析。结果显示,PORT对生存有明显的不利影响,危险比为1.18,即死亡风险相对增加18%。这相当于两年的绝对不利影响为 5%(95% 置信区间 (CI):2% 至 9%),使总生存率从 58% 降至 53%。亚组分析表明,任何参与者亚组协变量对 PORT 效果的影响均无差异。在这些试验中,研究者并未例行收集生活质量信息,而且 PORT 的任何益处都不太可能抵消观察到的生存劣势。我们认为纳入试验的偏倚风险较低:11项试验和2343名参与者的结果表明,PORT对完全切除的非小细胞肺癌患者不利,不应在此类患者的常规治疗中使用。正在进行的RCT研究结果将明确现代放疗对N2肿瘤患者的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013.

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT.

Search methods: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations.

Selection criteria: We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment.

Data collection and analysis: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival.

Main results: We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low.

Authors' conclusions: Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Recent Advances in Microfluidic Platform for Physical and Immunological Detection and Capture of Circulating Tumor Cells. 'You're Not Alone for China': The First Song in Times of COVID-19 to Keep the Faith in a World Crying in Silence. Large-scale decontamination of disposable FFP2 and FFP3 respirators by hydrogen peroxide vapour, Finland, April to June 2020. Body Composition Changes in College Athletes During Holiday Breaks. Mechanisms and potential interventions associated with the cardiotoxicity of ErbB2-targeted drugs: Insights from in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies in breast cancer patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1