首页> 外文期刊>Cancer epidemiology >Review of methodological challenges in comparing the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer in the United States
【24h】

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

机译:对美国新辅助化疗对初级卵巢癌初级剥削手术的效果探讨方法论挑战

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

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:在美国外部的随机试验发现Neoadjuvant化疗(NACT)与先进的卵巢癌(AOC)的初级消除手术(PDS)的非劣质存活。然而,这些试验报告的总体生存率降低,比美国研究的最佳消亡率较低,导致关于对美国的普遍性的典范性的问题,其中侵略性的Debulking更为常见。因此,美国的比较有效性仍存在争议。我们审查了对AOC的NACT与PDS的比较有效性研究。在这里,我们描述了方法论挑战,比较美国外部的试验结果,并对未来的研究提出建议。我们确定了2010年或后期出版的美国研究,评估了通过PubMed搜索在AOC中生存的基态与PDS的比较有效性。两个独立审阅者从符合条件的文章中抽象数据。 9分中的九个文章有资格审查。方法论挑战包括未测量的混淆,异质治疗效果,随时间的治疗变异,以及治疗和存活的不一致。虽然一些限制是不可避免的,但研究的几个限制是可避免的,包括通过测量从诊断中测量生存率引入的调解因子和不朽时间的调节。没有在美国的试验,非随机研究是AOC理想治疗的重要证据来源。然而,当评估非随机化环境中结构与PDS的比较有效性时,存在几种方法挑战。未来的观察研究必须确保在整个研究期间治疗一致,并且治疗组是可比的。快速发展的肿瘤学数据网络可能允许识别治疗意图和其他重要的混乱。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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