Horesh Nir, Dourado Justin, Rogers Peter, Aeschbacher Pauline, Garoufalia Zoe, Gefen Rachel, Salama Ebram, Emile Sameh Hany, Wexner Steven D
Ellen Leifer Shulman and Steven Shulman Digestive Disease Center, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA.
Department of Surgery and Transplantations, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan and Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Int J Cancer. 2025 Nov 1;157(9):1864-1875. doi: 10.1002/ijc.35521. Epub 2025 Jun 23.
Robustness of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial for guiding clinical decisions in rectal cancer. We evaluated the reliability of RCTs cited by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer using the Fragility Index (FI) that quantifies the stability of trial outcomes. RCTs referenced in the latest NCCN guidelines for rectal cancer were reviewed. Data from eligible trials were extracted. FI was calculated to assess the robustness of evidence across different treatment modalities. Sixty-seven RCTs (published: 1987-2022) involving 16,990 patients were analyzed. Most studies (58.2%) were conducted in Europe. Common treatment areas included metastatic liver disease (28.9%) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (14.9%). Primary outcomes were disease-free survival and overall survival (OS) in 15 studies each (22.4%), local recurrence rates in 6 (9%), and tumor response in 5 (7.5%). The median FI was 9 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-20). Studies on surgical interventions had the highest median FI (21 [IQR 7-27]) followed by studies on neoadjuvant radiotherapy (19 [IQR 14-25]). Neoadjuvant immunotherapy studies had the lowest median FI of 0, indicating less robust evidence. Notably, surgical intervention studies showed the largest gap between FI and patients lost to follow-up (21 vs. 13.5), while neoadjuvant immunotherapy studies showed more patients lost to follow-up than the median FI (0 vs. 5), highlighting the need for stronger evidence. In conclusion, evidence supporting most treatments for rectal cancer in the NCCN guidelines is robust, although neoadjuvant immunotherapy requires further scrutiny due to its low FI. FI offers a nuanced perspective on the reliability of trial outcomes.
随机对照试验(RCT)证据的稳健性对于指导直肠癌的临床决策至关重要。我们使用量化试验结果稳定性的脆弱性指数(FI),评估了美国国立综合癌症网络(NCCN)直肠癌指南所引用RCT的可靠性。对最新NCCN直肠癌指南中引用的RCT进行了回顾。提取了符合条件试验的数据。计算FI以评估不同治疗方式下证据的稳健性。分析了涉及16990例患者的67项RCT(发表时间:1987 - 2022年)。大多数研究(58.2%)在欧洲进行。常见治疗领域包括转移性肝病(28.9%)和新辅助化疗(14.9%)。主要结局中,无病生存率和总生存率(OS)在15项研究中各占(22.4%),局部复发率在6项研究中占(9%),肿瘤反应在5项研究中占(7.5%)。FI中位数为9(四分位间距[IQR] 2 - 20)。手术干预研究的FI中位数最高(21 [IQR 7 - 27]),其次是新辅助放疗研究(19 [IQR 14 - 25])。新辅助免疫治疗研究的FI中位数最低,为0,表明证据稳健性较差。值得注意的是,手术干预研究显示FI与失访患者之间的差距最大(21对13.5),而新辅助免疫治疗研究显示失访患者多于FI中位数(0对5),突出了对更强证据的需求。总之,NCCN指南中支持大多数直肠癌治疗的证据是稳健的,尽管新辅助免疫治疗因其低FI需要进一步审查。FI为试验结果的可靠性提供了细致入微的视角。