Sara Hurvitz, Alexander Niyazov, Ying Chen, and Hope S. Rugo
Jia-Wei Lv, Yu-Pei Chen, Guan-Qun Zhou, Xu Liu, Ying Guo, Yan-Ping Mao, Jun Ma, and Ying Sun
Background: The reporting quality of publications is of vital importance to ensure accurate evidence dissemination. This study aimed to compare the consistency of results reporting between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and the respective matching publications. Methods: We identified 323 phase III/IV cancer drug trials with a randomized controlled design and searched PubMed for publications in a 50% random sample (n=160). Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. A scoring system was applied to determine characteristics associated with reporting quality. Results: Of 117 reviewed trials with publications, result reporting was significantly more complete in ClinicalTrials.gov for efficacy measurement (92.3% vs 90.6%), serious adverse events (SAEs; 100% vs 43.6%), and other adverse events (OAEs; 100% vs 62.4%). For trials with both posted and published results for design information (n=117), efficacy measurements (n=98), SAEs (n=51), and OAEs (n=73), discrepancies were found in 16 (13.7%), 38 (38.8%), 26 (51.0%), and 54 (74.0%) trials, respectively. Overreporting of treatment effects (7 trials) and alteration of primary end points favoring statistically significant outcomes (11 trials) were the major discrepancies in efficacy reporting; incomplete (66 trials) and underreporting (20 trials) of SAEs were the predominant issues in benefit/risk reporting. Median quality score was 21 (range, 14–28). Trials that had parallel assignment, were phase IV, had primary funding by industry, were completed after 2009, and had earlier results posted possessed better reporting quality. Conclusions: Although most trials showed reasonable completeness and consistency, some discrepancies are prevalent and persistent, jeopardizing evidence-based decision-making. Our findings highlight the need to consult results systematically from both ClinicalTrials.gov and publications.
Yue Chen, Zi-Qi Zheng, Fo-Ping Chen, Jian-Ye Yan, Xiao-Dan Huang, Feng Li, Ying Sun, and Guan-Qun Zhou
Background: Head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignant tumor that is prone to local recurrence. The NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers recommend that all patients with ACC receive postoperative radiotherapy (PORT). However, whether PORT can improve local control and which patients can benefit from PORT are unknown. This study aimed to assess the role of PORT and provide individualized suggestions for postoperative therapy in patients with ACC. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with nonmetastatic head and neck ACC who underwent surgery with or without PORT. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was performed to categorize the patients and predict local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). The survival outcome was compared between non-PORT and PORT groups. Results: A total of 319 patients were included. PORT was identified as a prognostic factor for LRFS in univariate (P=.01) and multivariate analysis (P<.01). However, it did not improve distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival, or overall survival in univariate analysis. RPA categorized patients into 3 prognostic groups: low-risk (negative margin, T1–T2, primary location = major or minor salivary gland), intermediate-risk (negative margin, T1–T2, primary location = other locations instead of a major or minor salivary gland; negative margin, T3–T4; positive margin, without bone invasion), and high-risk (positive margin, with bone invasion). Significant LRFS improvements in the PORT group were observed among intermediate-risk (P<.01) and high-risk patients (P<.05). LRFS improvements among low-risk patients were relatively insignificant (P=.10). Conclusions: PORT was shown to be a positive prognostic factor for improved LRFS in ACC. Furthermore, PORT could significantly improve LRFS in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients with ACC, but whether low-risk patients could benefit from PORT needs further study.
Yu-Pei Chen, Ya-Qin Wang, Wen-Fei Li, Lei Chen, Cheng Xu, Tai-Xiang Lu, Ai-Hua Lin, Ji-Jin Yao, Yang-Chan Li, Ying Sun, Yan-Ping Mao, and Jun Ma
Background: Given the distinct biological characteristics and regional distribution of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) compared with other head and neck cancers, and uncertainties regarding therapeutic strategies, physicians require high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to provide transparent recommendations for NPC treatment. This study aimed to critically appraise the quality of NPC CPGs and assess the consistency of their recommendations. Methods: We identified CPGs that provided recommendations on the diagnosis and management of NPC published up to December 2015. Four investigators independently appraised CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Key recommendations by CPGs were also evaluated. Results: A total of 7 CPGs were eligible for this study: 5 produced by professional organizations or governmental agencies and 2 were developed based on expert consensus. Of the 6 AGREE II domains, the applicability domain scored consistently low across CPGs (range, 13.5%–30.2%); no CPG achieved a score of >50% in all 6 domains. The scope and purpose domain (≥73.6% for 4 CPGs) and editorial independence domain (≥75.0% for 6 CPGs) scored highest. Of the 23 AGREE II items, 9 scored less than half of the points available in all 7 CPGs. The recommendations by CPGs were consistent in general; heterogeneity mainly existed among recommended therapeutic strategies. Conclusions: Variation exists in NPC CPG development processes and recommendations. Increased efforts are required to make comprehensive resources available to guide healthcare providers and enhance delivery of high-quality, evidence-based care for NPC. International collaboration is necessary to enable the development of high-quality and regionally relevant CPGs for NPC.
Ling-Long Tang, Yu-Pei Chen, Yan-Ping Mao, Zi-Xian Wang, Rui Guo, Lei Chen, Li Tian, Ai-Hua Lin, Li Li, Ying Sun, and Jun Ma
Background: In this study, we evaluated the 8th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC)/AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in an endemic area, with the aim of validating its applicability and providing further information for future refinements. Methods: A total of 1,790 patients with newly diagnosed, non–distant metastatic, histologically proven NPC treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were retrospectively reviewed. The performance of various staging systems was compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell's concordance index (c-index). Results: For N (node) category, the survival curves of different groups according to the 8th edition were well-separated, and the prognostic model predicted outcomes fairly well. The 8th edition had higher AIC and c-index values for all end points than the 7th edition. However, probably due to the improved locoregional control provided by IMRT, the survival curves for T2 and T3 almost overlapped, without significant differences in locoregional failure-free survival (P=.606) and disease-free survival (P=.735). Due to the difficultly of differentiating T2 and T3, the AIC and c-index values were similar for the T categories of the 7th and 8th editions. Similarly, the overall survival and disease-free survival curves for stage II and III disease were not clearly separated for either the 8th or 7th editions. Conclusions: The 8th edition of the UICC/AJCC staging system for NPC enables more accurate prediction of treatment outcomes. However, several limitations need to be addressed in future editions, and it would be reasonable to further optimize the T category classification.
Zi-Xian Wang, Hao-Xiang Wu, Ming-Ming He, Ying-Nan Wang, Hui-Yan Luo, Pei-Rong Ding, Dan Xie, Gong Chen, Yu-Hong Li, Feng Wang, and Rui-Hua Xu
Background: Previous meta-analyses have suggested primary tumor location as a predictive factor for efficacy of anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the recent phase III TAILOR trial addressing this issue was not included in those analyses. This meta-analysis incorporated data from the TAILOR trial to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR agents (cetuximab [Cet] or panitumumab [Pani]) versus chemotherapy alone for RAS wild-type (wt) right- and left-sided mCRC. Patients and Methods: A PubMed-based literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the additional efficacy of Cet/Pani in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in RAS wt left- and right-sided mCRC. Study-level pooled analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were performed. Results: Three first-line RCTs (CRYSTAL, PRIME, and TAILOR) and one second-line RCT (20050181) were included. Significant OS benefits from Cet/Pani were observed in the left-sided (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66–0.86) but not right-sided subgroups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78–1.27). However, the addition of Cet/Pani to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS and ORR in both the left-sided (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.86, and OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.95–5.51, respectively) and right-sided subgroups (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59–0.99, and OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.08–2.93, respectively). Conclusions: The addition of Cet/Pani to chemotherapy significantly benefits PFS and ORR in patients with RAS wt right-sided mCRC, indicating that anti-EGFR therapies may remain an option for selected patients.
Qingqing Zhou, Chenchen Zhu, Zhen Shen, Jing Zhu, Tianjiao Zhang, Min Li, Jiwei Qin, Lili Qian, Chuan Chen, Hanyuan Liu, Zhihao Xu, Dabao Wu, Björn Nashan, and Ying Zhou
Ying Zhou, Chenchen Zhu, Zhen Shen, Yanhu Xie, Wei Zhang, Jing Zhu, Tianjiao Zhang, Min Li, Jiwei Qin, Shuai Yin, Rongzhu Chen, Wei Wei, Sinan Sun, Guihong Wang, Zheng Zhou, Hanhui Yao, Dabao Wu, and Björn Nashan
Lida Mina, Ruben G.W. Quek, Johannes Ettl, Ying Chen, Miguel Martin, Zev A. Wainberg, Johann S. de Bono, Sara A. Hurvitz, and Hope S. Rugo
Li-Ting Liu, Qiu-Yan Chen, Lin-Quan Tang, Shan-Shan Guo, Ling Guo, Hao-Yuan Mo, Yang Li, Qing-Nan Tang, Xue-Song Sun, Yu-Jing Liang, Chong Zhao, Xiang Guo, Chao-Nan Qian, Mu-Sheng Zeng, Jin-Xin Bei, Ming-Huang Hong, Jian-Yong Shao, Ying Sun, Jun Ma, and Hai-Qiang Mai
Background: The goal of this study was to explore the value of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with different risks of treatment failure. Patients and Methods: A total of 2,263 eligible patients with stage III–IVb NPC treated with CCRT ± NACT or ACT were included in this retrospective study. Distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS), overall survival, and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Patients in the low-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] DNA <4,000 copies/mL) who received NACT followed by CCRT achieved significantly better 5-year DMFS than those treated with CCRT alone (96.2% vs 91.3%; P= .008). Multivariate analyses also demonstrated that additional NACT was the only independent prognostic factor for DMFS (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.80; P=.009). In both the intermediate-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL and stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA <4,000 copies/mL) and the high-risk group (stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL), comparison of NACT or ACT + CCRT versus CCRT alone indicated no significantly better survival for all end points. Conclusions: The addition of NACT to CCRT could reduce distant failure in patients with low risk of treatment failure.