Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorXiong, T
dc.contributor.authorTurner, RM
dc.contributor.authorWei, Yinghui
dc.contributor.authorNeal, DE
dc.contributor.authorLyratzopoulos, G
dc.contributor.authorHiggins, JPT
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-19T11:40:31Z
dc.date.available2016-11-19T11:40:31Z
dc.date.issued2014-05
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.otherARTN e004285
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/6765
dc.description.abstract

CONTEXT: There is ongoing uncertainty about the optimal management of patients with localised prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different treatments for patients with localised prostate cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate comparative ORs, and a score (0-100%) that, for a given outcome, reflects average rank order of superiority of each treatment compared against all others, using the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) statistic. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of MEDLINE without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different primary treatments (48 papers from 21 randomised trials included 7350 men). DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Comparative efficacy and safety evidence was available for prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy (different types and regimens), observational management and cryotherapy, but not high-intensity focused ultrasound. There was no evidence of superiority for any of the compared treatments in respect of all-cause mortality after 5 years. Cryotherapy was associated with less gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity than radiotherapy (SUCRA: 99% and 77% for gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggests that different treatments may be optimal for different efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of informed patient choice and shared decision-making about treatment modality and acceptable trade-offs between different outcomes. More trial evidence is required to reduce uncertainty. Network meta-analysis may be useful to optimise the power of evidence synthesis studies once data from new randomised controlled studies in this field are published in the future.

dc.format.extente004285-e004285
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBMJ
dc.subjectMeta-Analysis
dc.subjectProstate Cancer
dc.subjectRandomised Trials
dc.subjectSystematic Review
dc.subjectTreatment
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasms
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.subjectTherapeutics
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome
dc.titleComparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeComparative Study
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeMeta-Analysis
dc.typeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
dc.typeReview
dc.typeSystematic Review
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000336976900101&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue5
plymouth.volume4
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBMJ Open
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Science and Engineering
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Science and Engineering/School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/EXTENDED UoA 10 - Mathematical Sciences
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA10 Mathematical Sciences
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Researchers in ResearchFish submission
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
plymouth.oa-locationhttp://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC4024605&blobtype=pdf


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV