Ronald Chow1, Peter Hoskin2, Steven E Schild3, Srinivas Raman4, James Im5, Daniel Zhang5, Stephanie Chan6, Nicholas Chiu6, Leonard Chiu6, Henry Lam6, Edward Chow6, Michael Lock5. 1. 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. Electronic address: rchow48@uwo.ca. 2. Mount Vernon Hospital, London, United Kingdom; University of Manchester, United Kingdom. 3. Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, USA. 4. British Columbia Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Canada. 5. London Regional Cancer Program, London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. 6. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: J O Kim; N Hanumanthappa; Y T Chung; J Beck; R Koul; B Bashir; A Cooke; A Dubey; J Butler; M Nashed; W Hunter; A Ong Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Brandon L Ellsworth; Allan K Metz; Nicole M Mott; Ruby Kazemi; Michael Stover; Tasha Hughes; Lesly A Dossett Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-02-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Noah J Mathis; Connor J Doyle; Daniel B Rosen; N Ari Wijetunga; Max Vaynrub; Meredith Bartelstein; David M Guttmann; Victoria S Brennan; Yoshiya J Yamada; Erin F Gillespie; Divya Yerramilli; Jonathan T Yang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Sonu Bhaskar; Akansha Sinha; Maciej Banach; Shikha Mittoo; Robert Weissert; Joseph S Kass; Santhosh Rajagopal; Anupama R Pai; Shelby Kutty Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 7.561