No abstract

ObjectiveUnbiased 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.

Objective: This study aims to comprehensively analyze the influence of spontaneous tumor rupture on the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients following hepatic resection.Methods: We systematically searched four online electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, for eligible studies published from inception to March 2021. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).Results: This meta-analysis included 21 observational articles with 57,241 cases. The results revealed that spontaneous tumor rupture was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio (HR), 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.33–2.05) and DFS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12–1.80) in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients. This phenomenon was observed in most subgroups, which were classified by recorded survival time, age, country, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) concentration, liver cirrhosis, and microvascular invasion. However, in subgroups of macrovascular invasion positive, spontaneous tumor rupture was not a risk factor for OS (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99–2.42) and DFS (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.91–1.65) in hepatocellular carcinoma patients after hepatectomy. For macrovascular invasion negative, compared with non-ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma patients, ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma patients exhibited worse prognosis for OS (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99–2.42) and DFS (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.91–1.65) following hepatectomy.Conclusions: Spontaneous tumor rupture was a prognostic risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma patients after hepatic resection. However, in macrovascular invasion patients, spontaneous tumor rupture was not a prognostic risk factor.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract