PURPOSE: A new method is presented for synthesizing dose-response data for biochemical control of prostate cancer according to study design (randomized vs. nonrandomized) and risk group (low vs. intermediate-high). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine published prostate cancer dose escalation studies including 6,539 patients were identified in the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases and reviewed to assess the relationship between dose and biochemical control. A novel method of analysis is presented in which the normalized dose-response gradient, gamma(50), is estimated for each study and subsequently synthesized across studies. Our method does not assume that biochemical control rates are directly comparable between studies. RESULTS: Nonrandomized studies produced a statistically significantly higher gamma(50) than randomized studies for intermediate- to high-risk patients (gamma(50) = 1.63 vs. gamma(50) = 0.93, p = 0.03) and a borderline significantly higher (gamma(50) = 1.78 vs. gamma(50) = 0.56, p = 0.08) for low-risk patients. No statistically significant difference in gamma(50) was found between low- and intermediate- to high-risk patients (p = 0.31). From the pooled data of low and intermediate- to high-risk patients in randomized trials, we obtain the overall best estimate of gamma(50) = 0.84 with 95% confidence interval 0.54-1.15. CONCLUSIONS: Nonrandomized studies overestimate the steepness of the dose-response curve as compared with randomized trials. This is probably the result of stage migration, improved treatment techniques, and a shorter follow-up in higher dose patients that were typically entered more recently. This overestimation leads to inflated expectations regarding the benefit from dose-escalation and could lead to underpowered clinical trials. There is no evidence of a steeper dose response for intermediate- to high-risk compared with low-risk patients. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: A new method is presented for synthesizing dose-response data for biochemical control of prostate cancer according to study design (randomized vs. nonrandomized) and risk group (low vs. intermediate-high). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine published prostate cancer dose escalation studies including 6,539 patients were identified in the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases and reviewed to assess the relationship between dose and biochemical control. A novel method of analysis is presented in which the normalized dose-response gradient, gamma(50), is estimated for each study and subsequently synthesized across studies. Our method does not assume that biochemical control rates are directly comparable between studies. RESULTS: Nonrandomized studies produced a statistically significantly higher gamma(50) than randomized studies for intermediate- to high-risk patients (gamma(50) = 1.63 vs. gamma(50) = 0.93, p = 0.03) and a borderline significantly higher (gamma(50) = 1.78 vs. gamma(50) = 0.56, p = 0.08) for low-risk patients. No statistically significant difference in gamma(50) was found between low- and intermediate- to high-risk patients (p = 0.31). From the pooled data of low and intermediate- to high-risk patients in randomized trials, we obtain the overall best estimate of gamma(50) = 0.84 with 95% confidence interval 0.54-1.15. CONCLUSIONS: Nonrandomized studies overestimate the steepness of the dose-response curve as compared with randomized trials. This is probably the result of stage migration, improved treatment techniques, and a shorter follow-up in higher dose patients that were typically entered more recently. This overestimation leads to inflated expectations regarding the benefit from dose-escalation and could lead to underpowered clinical trials. There is no evidence of a steeper dose response for intermediate- to high-risk compared with low-risk patients. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: G E Hanks; A L Hanlon; W H Pinover; E M Horwitz; R A Price; T Schultheiss Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Katja M Langen; Twyla R Willoughby; Omar A Zeidan; Sanford L Meeks Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Deborah A Kuban; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; George Starkschall; Eugene H Huang; M Rex Cheung; Andrew K Lee; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sunil Adige; Rena G Lapidus; Brandon A Carter-Cooper; Alison Duffy; Ciera Patzke; Jennie Y Law; Maria R Baer; Nicholas P Ambulos; Ying Zou; Søren M Bentzen; Ashkan Emadi Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Ricky A Sharma; Ruth Plummer; Julie K Stock; Tessa A Greenhalgh; Ozlem Ataman; Stephen Kelly; Robert Clay; Richard A Adams; Richard D Baird; Lucinda Billingham; Sarah R Brown; Sean Buckland; Helen Bulbeck; Anthony J Chalmers; Glen Clack; Aaron N Cranston; Lars Damstrup; Roberta Ferraldeschi; Martin D Forster; Julian Golec; Russell M Hagan; Emma Hall; Axel-R Hanauske; Kevin J Harrington; Tom Haswell; Maria A Hawkins; Tim Illidge; Hazel Jones; Andrew S Kennedy; Fiona McDonald; Thorsten Melcher; James P B O'Connor; John R Pollard; Mark P Saunders; David Sebag-Montefiore; Melanie Smitt; John Staffurth; Ian J Stratford; Stephen R Wedge Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Joen Sveistrup; Per Munck af Rosenschöld; Joseph O Deasy; Jung Hun Oh; Tobias Pommer; Peter Meidahl Petersen; Svend Aage Engelholm Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 3.481