| 1. |
- Zhang, JR, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:9, s. e017240-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Unbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments.DesignLiterature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments.ResultsOf 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29).ConclusionsNo systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Gao, X, et al.
(författare)
-
Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes 1 year after thoracoscopic segmentectomy versus lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: a multicentre, prospective cohort study protocol
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 13:1, s. e067841-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Segmentectomy and lobectomy are the main surgical procedures for early-stage lung cancer. However, few studies have analysed patient-reported outcomes after segmentectomy versus lobectomy. This study aims to compare patient-reported outcomes—such as symptoms, daily functioning and quality of life—between thoracoscopic segmentectomy and lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer during the 1 year after surgery.Methods and analysisOverall, 788 newly diagnosed patients with early-stage lung cancer (tumour size ≤2 cm), who are scheduled to undergo thoracoscopic segmentectomy or lobectomy, will be recruited in this multicentre, prospective cohort study. The patients will receive standardised care after surgery. The Perioperative Symptom Assessment for Lung Surgery—a validated lung cancer surgery-specific scale—will be used to assess the symptoms and functions at baseline, at discharge and monthly after discharge for 1 year. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Lung Cancer module 29 will be used to assess the patients’ quality of life at the same time points. The primary outcome will be the shortness of breath scores during the first year after thoracoscopic segmentectomy and lobectomy and will be compared using mixed-effects models. The secondary outcomes will include other symptoms, indicators of daily functioning, quality of life scores and traditional clinical outcomes. These will be compared using mixed-effects models and the Student’s t-test, non-parametric test or Χ2test. Propensity score matching will be used to ensure an even distribution of known confounders between the groups.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Committee for Medical Research and New Medical Technology of Sichuan Cancer Hospital approved this study (approval number: SCCHEC-02-2022-002). All participants will be instructed to provide informed consent. The manuscript is based on protocol version 3.0. The study results will be presented at medical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChiCTR2200060753.
|
|
| 5. |
- He, YQ, et al.
(författare)
-
A polygenic risk score for nasopharyngeal carcinoma shows potential for risk stratification and personalized screening
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 13:1, s. 1966-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have the potential to identify individuals at risk of diseases, optimizing treatment, and predicting survival outcomes. Here, we construct and validate a genome-wide association study (GWAS) derived PRS for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), using a multi-center study of six populations (6 059 NPC cases and 7 582 controls), and evaluate its utility in a nested case-control study. We show that the PRS enables effective identification of NPC high-risk individuals (AUC = 0.65) and improves the risk prediction with the PRS incremental deciles in each population (Ptrend ranging from 2.79 × 10−7 to 4.79 × 10−44). By incorporating the PRS into EBV-serology-based NPC screening, the test’s positive predictive value (PPV) is increased from an average of 4.84% to 8.38% and 11.91% in the top 10% and 5% PRS, respectively. In summary, the GWAS-derived PRS, together with the EBV test, significantly improves NPC risk stratification and informs personalized screening.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
