London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada.
Mount Vernon Hospital, London, United Kingdom; University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Dec;141:56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.06.037. Epub 2019 Aug 21.
There has been a long-standing debate regarding the efficacy of single fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) compared to multiple fraction radiotherapy (MFRT); many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted to resolve the debate and suggested SFRT is equally as effective as MFRT. Given the adequate amalgamated sample size that exists, it is difficult to appreciate the need for further RCTs. The aim of this paper was to conduct a cumulative meta-analysis to determine whether further trials will be of value to the meta-conclusion. This paper also assessed publication quality.
A total of 29 studies were used in our meta-analysis. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3) by Biostat was used to conduct a cumulative meta-analysis. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was employed to assess study quality of the included RCTs. Funnel plots were generated using Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS, to visually assess for publication bias.
All but one endpoint, overall response rates in assessable patients, maintained the same meta-conclusion over publication time; published studies did not change the amalgamated scientific conclusion of existing literature. Additional studies have simply confirmed pre-existing conclusions and refined the point estimate of the efficacy estimate. The majority of included studies have low risk of bias.
In conclusion, the meta-conclusion has remained consistent over time - SFRT is equally as efficacious as MFRT. Recent studies have had little impact on the overall conclusion, and given the vast amount of resources to execute a randomized trial, future resources should not be used to repeat these studies, and can be better allocated to test other hypotheses.
关于单次分割放疗 (SFRT) 与多次分割放疗 (MFRT) 的疗效一直存在长期争论;为了解决这一争论,已经进行了许多系统评价和荟萃分析,并提出 SFRT 与 MFRT 同样有效。鉴于现有的综合样本量足够大,很难看出进一步进行 RCT 的必要性。本文旨在进行累积荟萃分析,以确定进一步的试验是否对荟萃结论有价值。本文还评估了发表质量。
我们的荟萃分析共使用了 29 项研究。Biostat 的 Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3) 用于进行累积荟萃分析。采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具评估纳入 RCT 的研究质量。使用 Cochrane IMS 的 Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) 生成漏斗图,以直观评估发表偏倚。
除了可评估患者的总体反应率这一个终点外,所有终点在发表时间上都保持了相同的荟萃结论;发表的研究并未改变现有文献综合科学结论。额外的研究只是证实了先前的结论,并细化了疗效估计的点估计值。大多数纳入的研究具有低偏倚风险。
总之,随着时间的推移,荟萃结论保持一致-SFRT 与 MFRT 同样有效。最近的研究对总体结论影响不大,鉴于执行随机试验所需的大量资源,未来的资源不应用于重复这些研究,而可以更好地用于测试其他假设。