Letter to the Editor Is meta-analysis effective in evaluating local treatment benefits for oligometastatic prostate cancer?Dear Editor,We read with great interest the study by Sun et al., published in the International Journal of Urology. 1 Past randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have already demonstrated the effectiveness of radiation therapy for patients with low-volume hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, 2,3 whereas the debate on whether to administer local treatment for the patients has been extensive.In this study, Sun et al. 1 conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2010-November 2023), including 11 studies (3 RCTs and 8 retrospective studies), to assess the feasibility and safety of local treatment (radiation therapy or cytoreductive prostatectomy) for patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer (OmPCa). Local treatment significantly improved overall survival (OS) [HR = 0.64; p < 0.0001] and PSAprogression-free survival [HR = 0.44; p = 0.0001]. Radiographic progression-free survival showed significant results in non-RCTs [HR = 0.42; p = 0.002]. Cancer-specific survival improved in RCTs [HR = 0.65; p = 0.009]. Complication rates were lower in the local treatment (cytoreductive prostatectomy) group than the control group (p < 0.00001). From these results, the authors concluded that local treatment can significantly improve oncological outcomes in patients with OmPCa.While we found the present study 1 to be of significant interest, we would like to propose considerations for future investigations. Firstly, it is essential to evaluate whether the results of this meta-analysis will influence treatment guidelines for OmPCa patients. Since RCTs have already established the effectiveness of local therapy for OmPCa, it is expected that the meta-analysis would support these findings. However, incorporating retrospective studies introduces considerable selection bias, as studies that do not demonstrate the effectiveness of local therapy are unlikely to be published. Therefore, combining these retrospective studies with RCTs might appear to provide more precise discussions but could lead to ambiguous conclusions.Secondly, the current meta-analysis is based on aggregate data, which may not adequately align patient backgrounds, as it relies on patient numbers, hazard ratios, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). While aggregate data meta-analysis will be useful for points not covered by RCTs or not the primary endpoints of RCTs, it is less effective when analyzing already established primary endpoints. For such cases, an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis will be more appropriate.With the availability of RCT data through initiatives like the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project, 4 it is crucial to leverage such data to produce clinically significant results. We urge the authors and reviewers to carefully consider the rationale and significance of conducting and publishing metaanalyses. Indeed, recently, it has become increasingly common...