首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Review of methodological challenges in comparing the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulkingsurgery for advanced ovarian cancer in the United States
【2h】

Review of methodological challenges in comparing the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulkingsurgery for advanced ovarian cancer in the United States

机译:比较新辅助化疗与原发性减毒的有效性的方法学挑战美国晚期卵巢癌手术

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Randomized trials outside the U.S. have found non-inferior survival for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). However, these trials reported lower overall survival and lower rates of optimal debulking than U.S. studies, leading to questions about generalizability to U.S. practice, where aggressive debulking is more common. Consequently, comparative effectiveness in the U.S. remains controversial. We reviewed U.S. comparative effectiveness studies of NACT versus PDS for AOC. Here we describe methodological challenges, compare results to trials outside the U.S., and make suggestions for future research. We identified U.S. studies published in 2010 or later that evaluated the comparative effectiveness of NACT versus PDS on survival in AOC through a PubMed search. Two independent reviewers abstracted data from eligible articles. Nine of 230 articles were eligible for review. Methodological challenges included unmeasured confounders, heterogeneous treatment effects, treatment variations over time, and inconsistent measurement of treatment and survival. Whereas some limitations were unavoidable, several limitations noted across studies were avoidable, including conditioning on mediating factors and immortal time introduced by measuring survival beginning from diagnosis. Without trials in the U.S., non-randomized studies are an important source of evidence for the ideal treatment for AOC. However, several methodological challenges exist when assessing the comparative effectiveness of NACT versus PDS in a non-randomized setting. Future observational studies must ensure that treatment is consistent throughout the study period and that treatment groups are comparable. Rapidly-evolving oncology data networks may allow for identification of treatment intent and other important confounders.
机译:美国境外的随机试验发现,新辅助化疗(NACT)的生存率与晚期卵巢癌(AOC)的初级减脂术(PDS)相比,生存率较低。但是,这些试验报告的总体生存率和最佳减量化的比率均低于美国的研究,这引发了对美国实践普遍适用性的质疑,在这种情况下,积极减量化更为普遍。因此,在美国的相对有效性仍然存在争议。我们回顾了NACT与PDS在AOC方面的美国比较有效性研究。在这里,我们描述了方法上的挑战,将结果与美国境外的试验进行了比较,并为以后的研究提供了建议。我们确定了2010年或更晚发表的美国研究,这些研究通过PubMed搜索评估了NACT与PDS对AOC生存率的比较有效性。两名独立审稿人从符合条件的文章中提取了数据。 230篇文章中有9篇符合审查条件。方法上的挑战包括无法衡量的混杂因素,异质治疗效果,治疗随时间变化以及治疗和生存率的不一致。尽管某些局限性是不可避免的,但跨研究注意到的一些局限性是可以避免的,包括对介导因子的调节和从诊断开始就通过测量存活率引入的不朽时间。未经美国的试验,非随机研究是AOC理想治疗的重要证据来源。但是,在非随机环境中评估NACT与PDS的比较有效性时,存在一些方法上的挑战。未来的观察性研究必须确保治疗在整个研究期间是一致的,并且治疗组具有可比性。迅速发展的肿瘤学数据网络可以确定治疗意图和其他重要的混杂因素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号