Evidence of survival benefit was often ambiguous in randomized trials of cancer treatments
| Autor: | Thomas V. Perneger, Pauline Brindel, Angèle Gayet-Ageron, Christophe Combescure |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Epidemiology law.invention 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Primary outcome Outcome variable Randomized controlled trial law Neoplasms Internal medicine Confidence Intervals medicine Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ddc:613 Probability ddc:618 business.industry Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data Hazard ratio Uncertainty Cancer Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data medicine.disease Confidence interval Cross-Sectional Studies Treatment Outcome Survival benefit Data Interpretation Statistical Periodicals as Topic business Neoplasms/drug therapy/mortality/radiotherapy 030217 neurology & neurosurgery Potential toxicity |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 127 (2020) pp. 1-8 |
| ISSN: | 0895-4356 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.026 |
| Popis: | Objectives The objective of the study is to estimate the proportion of statistically significant survival improvements reported in randomized trials of cancer treatments that are also compatible with a clinically negligible benefit. Study Design and Setting This is a cross-sectional study of reports of randomized clinical trials of cancer treatments that reported a statistically significant increase in overall survival, published in leading journals between 2009 and 2019. The main outcome variable was the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival and its upper 95% confidence limit. An HR of 0.95 implies an absolute survival gain ≤1.9%, and an HR of 0.90 implies an absolute survival gain ≤3.8%; we reasoned that such survival gains can be considered clinically negligible, given the potential toxicity of oncologic treatments. Results Among 234 trial results, the mean point estimate of the HR was 0.664, and all HRs were below 0.90. The mean upper 95% confidence limit for the HR was 0.897, but 37.6% of the values were ≥0.95, and 59.0% were ≥0.90. These proportions were lower when overall survival was the primary outcome of the trial (29.9% ≥ 0.95 and 51.3% ≥ 0.90). Conclusions Considering only point estimates of HRs, all trials reported clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival. However, the upper confidence limits of a large proportion of HRs were also compatible with clinically negligible survival gains. Acknowledging the uncertainty regarding treatment benefits presents a challenge for the reporting of trial results and for clinical decision-making. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect