Main B G, Strong S, McNair A G, Falk S J, Crosby T, Blazeby J M
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Dis Esophagus. 2015 Feb-Mar;28(2):156-63. doi: 10.1111/dote.12168. Epub 2014 Jan 20.
Accurate evaluation of radical radiotherapy requires well designed research with valid and appropriate outcomes. This study reviewed standards of outcome reporting and study design in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radiation-based therapy for esophageal cancer and made recommendations for future work. Randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes of definitive radiation-based treatment alone or in combination with chemotherapy were systematically identified and summarized. The types, frequency, and definitions of all clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reported in the methods and results sections of papers were examined. Studies providing a definition for at least one outcome and presenting all outcomes reported in the methods were classified as high quality. From 1425 abstracts, 16 RCTs including 1803 patients were identified. The primary outcome was overall survival in 13 studies, but five different definitions were reported. Outcomes for treatment failure included local, regional, and distant failures, and inconsistent definitions were applied. An observer assessment of dysphagia was reported in seven RCTs but PROs were reported in only one. Only three RCTs were at low risk of bias, with all lacking reports of sequence generation and only a minority reporting allocation concealment. The quality of outcome reporting in RCTs was inconsistent and risked bias. A core outcome set including clinical and PROs is needed to improve reporting of trials of definitive radiation-based treatment for esophageal cancer.
精确评估根治性放疗需要设计良好的研究,并具备有效且合适的结果指标。本研究回顾了食管癌放疗相关治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)中的结果报告标准和研究设计,并对未来工作提出了建议。系统地识别并总结了单独或联合化疗的根治性放疗的随机对照试验报告的结果。检查了论文方法和结果部分报告的所有临床和患者报告结局(PRO)的类型、频率和定义。为至少一个结局提供定义并呈现方法中报告的所有结局的研究被归类为高质量研究。从1425篇摘要中,识别出16项随机对照试验,共纳入1803例患者。13项研究的主要结局是总生存期,但报告了五种不同的定义。治疗失败的结局包括局部、区域和远处失败,且应用的定义不一致。7项随机对照试验报告了对吞咽困难的观察者评估,但只有1项报告了患者报告结局。只有3项随机对照试验存在低偏倚风险,所有试验均缺乏序列产生的报告,只有少数试验报告了分配隐藏情况。随机对照试验的结果报告质量不一致且存在偏倚风险。需要一个包括临床和患者报告结局的核心结局集,以改善食管癌根治性放疗试验的报告。