Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32963332›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2020

Assessment of non-inferiority with meta-analysis: example of hypofractionated radiation therapy in breast and prostate cancer.

Jane-Chloé Trone, Edouard Ollier, Céline Chapelle, Patrick Mismetti, Michel Cucherat, Nicolas Magné, Paul Jacques Zuffrey, Silvy Laporte

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Multi-day vs single-day dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jane-Chloé TroneDépartement de radiothérapie, Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth - Saint Etienne, 42270, St Priest-en-Jarez, France. jane-chloe.trone@icloire.fr.
Edouard OllierSAINBIOSE U1059, Equipe DVH, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France.
Céline ChapelleSAINBIOSE U1059, Equipe DVH, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France.
Patrick MismettiSAINBIOSE U1059, Equipe DVH, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France.
Michel CucheratUMR CNRS 5558 Evaluation et Modélisation des Effets Thérapeutiques, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Nicolas MagnéDépartement de radiothérapie, Institut de Cancérologie Lucien Neuwirth - Saint Etienne, 42270, St Priest-en-Jarez, France.
Paul Jacques ZuffreySAINBIOSE U1059, Equipe DVH, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France.
Silvy LaporteSAINBIOSE U1059, Equipe DVH, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to propose a methodology for the assessment of non-inferiority with meta-analysis. Assessment of hypofractionated RT in prostate and breast cancers is used as an illustrative example. Non-inferiority assessment of an experimental treatment versus an active comparator should rely on two elements: (1) an estimation of experimental treatment's effect versus the active comparator based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and (2) the value of an objective non-inferiority margin. This margin can be defined using the reported effect of active comparator and the percentage of the active comparator's effect that is desired to be preserved. Non-inferiority can then be assessed by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of experimental treatment's effect to the value of the objective non-inferiority margin. Application to hypofractionated RT in breast cancer showed that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HWBI) appeared to be non-inferior to conventionally fractionated RT for local recurrence. This was not the case for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Concerning overall survival, non-inferiority could not be claimed for either HWBI or APBI. For prostate cancer, the lack of demonstrated significant superiority of conventional RT versus no RT precluded any conclusion regarding non-inferiority of hypofractionated RT.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstatic NeoplasmsRadiation Dose HypofractionationRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32963332
PMCPMC7508968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.