Suppr超能文献

评估质子束治疗益处的临床研究中所用方法的系统评价。

Systematic review of methodology used in clinical studies evaluating the benefits of proton beam therapy.

作者信息

Ofuya Mercy, McParland Lucy, Murray Louise, Brown Sarah, Sebag-Montefiore David, Hall Emma

机构信息

Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.

Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jul 12;19:17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.07.002. eCollection 2019 Nov.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.

摘要

背景

质子束治疗(PBT)可将高能辐射传递至靶肿瘤,同时使周围正常组织免受辐射。PBT相对于传统光子放疗在剂量学上的优势可能很明显,但这种优势能否转化为临床上有意义的毒性降低和生活质量(QoL)改善尚需确定。随机对照试验(RCT)被认为是医学上产生最高级别证据的金标准。本系统评价的目的是概述已发表的评估PBT益处的临床研究,并审查临床试验在研究设计和结果方面所采用的方法。

方法

系统检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库,以查找将PBT作为癌症治疗干预措施的已发表临床研究。所有随机和非随机研究,前瞻性或回顾性研究,均符合纳入标准。

结果

共纳入219项研究。前瞻性研究占89/219(41%),其中随机II期和III期试验的数量分别为5/89(6%)和3/89(3%)。在所有II期和III期试验中,18/24(75%)在单个PBT中心进行。超过三分之一的作者建议延长随访时间。在74/89(83%)的前瞻性研究中,研究设计和/或结果报告不佳。仅在19/89(21%)的前瞻性研究中评估了患者报告的结果。

结论

PBT的前瞻性随机证据有限。几个国家建立国家PBT服务机构为指导前瞻性研究(包括RCT)的最佳设计提供了机会,以评估PBT在各种疾病部位的益处。PBT中心在国内和国际上的合作将增加产生改变实践证据的可能性。有必要促进和指导有意义的结局数据的收集和分析,包括晚期毒性和患者报告的QoL。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6c9f/6660607/e65a281f5d56/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验