RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are claimed to improve processes and outcomes of primary preventive care (PPC), but their effects, safety, and acceptance must be confirmed. We updated our previous systematic reviews of CCDSSs and integrated a knowledge translation approach in the process. The objective was to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CCDSSs for PPC on process of care, patient outcomes, harms, and costs. METHODS: We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews Database, Inspec, and other databases, as well as reference lists through January 2010. We contacted authors to confirm data or provide additional information. We included RCTs that assessed the effect of a CCDSS for PPC on process of care and patient outcomes compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive. RESULTS: We added 17 new RCTs to our 2005 review for a total of 41 studies. RCT quality improved over time. CCDSSs improved process of care in 25 of 40 (63%) RCTs. Cumulative scientifically strong evidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and management of dyslipidaemia in primary care. There is mixed evidence for effectiveness in screening for cancer and mental health conditions, multiple preventive care activities, vaccination, and other preventive care interventions. Fourteen (34%) trials assessed patient outcomes, and four (29%) reported improvements with the CCDSS. Most trials were not powered to evaluate patient-important outcomes. CCDSS costs and adverse events were reported in only six (15%) and two (5%) trials, respectively. Information on study duration was often missing, limiting our ability to assess sustainability of CCDSS effects. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and treatment of dyslipidaemia in primary care with less consistent evidence for CCDSSs used in screening for cancer and mental health-related conditions, vaccinations, and other preventive care. CCDSS effects on patient outcomes, safety, costs of care, and provider satisfaction remain poorly supported.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Underuse and overuse of diagnostic tests have important implications for health outcomes and costs. Decision support technology purports to optimize the use of diagnostic tests in clinical practice. The objective of this review was to assess whether computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are effective at improving ordering of tests for diagnosis, monitoring of disease, or monitoring of treatment. The outcome of interest was effect on the diagnostic test-ordering behavior of practitioners. METHODS: We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls in clinical care settings. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS gave suggestions for ordering or performing a diagnostic procedure. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of test ordering outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were identified, with significantly higher methodological quality in those published after the year 2000 (p = 0.002). Thirty-three trials reported evaluable data on diagnostic test ordering, and 55% (18/33) of CCDSSs improved testing behavior overall, including 83% (5/6) for diagnosis, 63% (5/8) for treatment monitoring, 35% (6/17) for disease monitoring, and 100% (3/3) for other purposes. Four of the systems explicitly attempted to reduce test ordering rates and all succeeded. Factors of particular interest to decision makers include costs, user satisfaction, and impact on workflow but were rarely investigated or reported. CONCLUSIONS: Some CCDSSs can modify practitioner test-ordering behavior. To better inform development and implementation efforts, studies should describe in more detail potentially important factors such as system design, user interface, local context, implementation strategy, and evaluate impact on user satisfaction and workflow, costs, and unintended consequences.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Some drugs have a narrow therapeutic range and require monitoring and dose adjustments to optimize their efficacy and safety. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve the net benefit of these drugs. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve processes of care or patient outcomes for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing. METHODS: We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Studies from our previous review were included, and new studies were sought until January 2010 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Inspec databases. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of a CCDSS on process of care or patient outcomes were selected by pairs of independent reviewers. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive. RESULTS: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified, assessing the effect of a CCDSS on management of vitamin K antagonists (14), insulin (6), theophylline/aminophylline (4), aminoglycosides (3), digoxin (2), lidocaine (1), or as part of a multifaceted approach (3). Cluster randomization was rarely used (18%) and CCDSSs were usually stand-alone systems (76%) primarily used by physicians (85%). Overall, 18 of 30 studies (60%) showed an improvement in the process of care and 4 of 19 (21%) an improvement in patient outcomes. All evaluable studies assessing insulin dosing for glycaemic control showed an improvement. In meta-analysis, CCDSSs for vitamin K antagonist dosing significantly improved time in therapeutic range. CONCLUSIONS: CCDSSs have potential for improving process of care for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing, specifically insulin and vitamin K antagonist dosing. However, studies were small and generally of modest quality, and effects on patient outcomes were uncertain, with no convincing benefit in the largest studies. At present, no firm recommendation for specific systems can be given. More potent CCDSSs need to be developed and should be evaluated by independent researchers using cluster randomization and primarily assess patient outcomes related to drug efficacy and safety.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Acute medical care often demands timely, accurate decisions in complex situations. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) have many features that could help. However, as for any medical intervention, claims that CCDSSs improve care processes and patient outcomes need to be rigorously assessed. The objective of this review was to systematically review the effects of CCDSSs on process of care and patient outcomes for acute medical care. METHODS: We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, ACP Journal Club, and others), and the Inspec bibliographic database were searched to January 2010, in all languages, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCDSSs in all clinical areas. We included RCTs that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS used for acute medical care compared with care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria for acute medical care. The CCDSS improved process of care in 63% (22/35) of studies, including 64% (9/14) of medication dosing assistants, 82% (9/11) of management assistants using alerts/reminders, 38% (3/8) of management assistants using guidelines/algorithms, and 67% (2/3) of diagnostic assistants. Twenty studies evaluated patient outcomes, of which three (15%) reported improvements, all of which were medication dosing assistants. CONCLUSION: The majority of CCDSSs demonstrated improvements in process of care, but patient outcomes were less likely to be evaluated and far less likely to show positive results.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit. METHODS: We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements. CONCLUSIONS: CCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve chronic disease management, which requires recurrent visits to multiple health professionals, ongoing disease and treatment monitoring, and patient behavior modification. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve the processes of chronic care (such as diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of disease) and associated patient outcomes (such as effects on biomarkers and clinical exacerbations). METHODS: We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for potentially eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS was designed to support chronic disease management. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Of 55 included trials, 87% (n = 48) measured system impact on the process of care and 52% (n = 25) of those demonstrated statistically significant improvements. Sixty-five percent (36/55) of trials measured impact on, typically, non-major (surrogate) patient outcomes, and 31% (n = 11) of those demonstrated benefits. Factors of interest to decision makers, such as cost, user satisfaction, system interface and feature sets, unique design and deployment characteristics, and effects on user workflow were rarely investigated or reported. CONCLUSIONS: A small majority (just over half) of CCDSSs improved care processes in chronic disease management and some improved patient health. Policy makers, healthcare administrators, and practitioners should be aware that the evidence of CCDSS effectiveness is limited, especially with respect to the small number and size of studies measuring patient outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

GOAL OF WORK: The goal of this work was to identify methods of clinician-patient cancer-related communication that may impact patient outcomes associated with distress at critical points in the course of cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of practice guidelines, systematic reviews, or randomized trials on this topic was conducted. Guidelines for quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, and the contributive value for recommendations was assessed. Systematic reviews and randomized trials were also evaluated for methodological rigor. RESULTS: Four existing guidelines, eight systematic reviews and nine randomized trials were identified. Two of the guidelines were of high quality, and all systematic reviews reported clear search criteria and support for their conclusions; the randomized trials were of modest or low quality. For all situations and disease stages, guidelines consistently identified open, honest, and timely communication as important; specifically, there was evidence for a reduction in anxiety when discussions of life expectancy and prognosis were included in consultations. Techniques to increase patient participation in decision-making were associated with greater satisfaction but did not necessarily decrease distress. Few studies took cultural and religious diversity into account. CONCLUSIONS: There is little definitive evidence supporting the superiority of one specific method for communicating information compared to another. Evidence regarding the benefit of decision aids or other strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent. Since patients vary in their communication preferences and desire for active participation in decision making, there is a need to individualize communication style.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

GOALS OF WORK: The goal of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of four drug classes (opioids, phenothiazines, benzodiazepines, and systemic corticosteroids) for relieving dyspnea experienced by advanced cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to July 2006. Search sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Four reviewers selected evidence using predefined criteria: controlled trials not limited to cancer and involving the specified drug classes for dyspnea treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Three systematic reviews, one with meta-analysis, two practice guidelines, and 28 controlled trials were identified. Most examined the effect of opioids, generally morphine, on dyspnea. Although the results of individual trials were mixed, the systematic review with meta-analysis detected a significant benefit for dyspnea with systemic opioids; two small placebo-controlled trials in cancer patients found systemic morphine reduced dyspnea, and dihydrocodeine also significantly reduced dyspnea in four placebo-controlled trials. Nebulized morphine was not effective in controlling dyspnea in any study or the meta-analysis. No controlled trials examined systemic corticosteroids in the treatment of cancer patients, and of the other non-opioid drugs examined, only oral promethazine, a phenothiazine, showed some benefit in the relief of dyspnea. Studies varied in methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic opioids, administered orally or parenterally, can be used to manage dyspnea in cancer patients. Oral promethazine may also be used, as a second-line agent if systemic opioids cannot be used or in addition to systemic opioids. Nebulized morphine, prochlorperazine, and benzodiazepines are not recommended for the treatment of dyspnea, and promethazine must not be used parenterally.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

GOALS OF THE WORK: To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for depression in cancer populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Supportive Care Guidelines Group conducted a systematic review of the published literature through June 2005. Search sources includes MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library. Comparative studies of treatments for depression in cancer patients were selected for review by two group members based on predefined criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials of pharmacological agents and four of nonpharmacological interventions were identified. Two trials detected a significant reduction in depressive symptoms for mianserin compared with placebo, and one trial found alprazolam to be superior to progressive muscle relaxation. Four drug trials found no significant difference between groups on depression measures although posttreatment reduction of symptoms was observed for all groups in two trials comparing active treatments (fluoxetine vs desipramine and paroxetine vs amitriptyline). Of the four trials involving nonpharmacological therapies for the management of depression, two detected a benefit for treatment (a multicomponent nurse delivered intervention and an orientation program) over usual care. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions in the treatment of cancer patients with depressive disorders, and no evidence for the superiority of one treatment modality over another. Based on evidence from the general population and other medically ill populations, combined approaches to the treatment of depression may be the most effective. Further research is necessary in cancer patients to determine the relative effectiveness of psychosocial, pharmacological, and combined treatments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A systematic review of the evidence for postoperative chemotherapy in completely resected nonsmall cell lung cancer was conducted. Seven meta-analyses and 25 randomized trials met the pre-defined eligibility criteria for the review. The evidence indicates that postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy improves survival compared with surgery alone; for patients with a good performance status who are fit enough for chemotherapy, the survival benefits strongly outweigh the adverse effects of treatment. To date the trials restricted to stage IB or II disease have obtained the greatest survival benefits with postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy. The evidence does not support the use of postoperative radiotherapy with chemotherapy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review and to evaluate the impact of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on the survival of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Relevant randomized trials and meta-analyses, published as articles or abstracts, were identified through electronic and hand searches by two reviewers. RESULTS: Seven meta-analyses and 26 randomized trials comparing surgery with or without chemotherapy met the pre-defined eligibility criteria for the review. The meta-analyses all showed a survival advantage for platinum- or UFT-based postoperative chemotherapy, although the results did not always achieve statistical significance. The results of individual trials were inconsistent, although recent trials have detected a large survival advantage with postoperative platinum-based chemotherapy. Differences in trial design, patient characteristics, disease stage, use of radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimen may explain the variation in results. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy improves survival compared with surgery alone in completely resected non-small cell lung cancer. In patients fit for chemotherapy, the survival benefits strongly outweigh the adverse effects of the treatment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Practitioner feedback (PF) surveys are sent to practitioners who care for lung cancer patients as each new practice guideline is completed. In this study, the PF was reviewed to assess the frequency of response to the surveys, the respondents' characteristics, the nature of the feedback, and the intention to adopt the guideline in practice. METHODS: Fourteen practice guidelines (PGs) were sent to Ontario practitioners treating lung cancer, and feedback on the PGs was obtained through either an eight- or 21-item survey. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2002, 1198 surveys were sent to 223 practitioners. The overall response rate was 58.9% but varied by specialty (radiation and medical oncologists, 67%; thoracic surgeons, 46%; respirologists, 38%), by location of practice (cancer center, 65%; community-based practice, 55%), by geographic region of the province (highest, 72%; lowest, 42%), and by PG topic (chemotherapy, 60%; radiotherapy, 63%; combined modality therapy, 52%). The response rate to the PF surveys did not decline over time. Eighty-six percent of respondents agreed with the lung cancer guidelines and indicated that they were likely or very likely to use the PGs in their practice. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that practitioners view the guideline development process as credible and useful to guide practice. Whether the stated intention to use the guidelines will actually translate into practice requires further study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor is a promising therapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this systematic review, we evaluated the role of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Relevant randomized trials published as articles or abstracts were identified through a systematic search of the literature from 1975 to November 2005 by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Twelve randomized trials met the predefined eligibility criteria for this systematic review. Four large placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that the addition of gefitinib or erlotinib to platinum-based first-line chemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival or time-to-disease progression. A large placebo-controlled trial revealed a clinically and statistically significant survival benefit for erlotinib therapy as second- or third-line systemic therapy. The results of a single placebo-controlled trial and two phase II trials suggest that modest tumor response rates and symptom control can be achieved with gefitinib as second-line or subsequent therapy; however, a statistically significant survival benefit was not found for gefitinib compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence to recommend against the use of gefitinib or erlotinib in combination with chemotherapy or as maintenance therapy after chemotherapy and radiation as a first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. Erlotinib monotherapy is an effective treatment that can prolong survival for patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease has relapsed or recurred after prior chemotherapy. Although a significant survival benefit has not been demonstrated for gefitinib in a placebo-controlled study, the two randomized phase II trials suggest that gefitinib may provide clinically important symptomatic benefits.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to determine the most effective therapy for patients with unresected stage III non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Relevant randomized trials and meta-analyses were identified through a systematic search of the literature. RESULTS: Forty-seven trials and six meta-analyses were included. No statistically significant survival differences were detected for immediate versus delayed administration of radiotherapy or different doses of hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Three of 12 trials comparing various doses and schedules of radiotherapy detected a statistically significant survival advantage with higher radiation doses. All meta-analyses found a statistically significant survival advantage for chemoradiation, particularly platinum-based, compared with radiation alone. One meta-analysis and three trials comparing concurrent with sequential chemoradiation detected a statistically significant survival advantage with concurrent administration. Increased toxicities, especially esophagitis and hematologic events, were generally associated with concurrent chemoradiation. The survival advantage for concurrent platinum-based chemoradiation corresponds to a 4% absolute survival benefit at 2 years. With respect to trials comparing different chemotherapy regimens or schedules, there is insufficient evidence to determine which particular regimen or schedule is most effective. CONCLUSION: Palliative radiotherapy can provide symptom relief for symptomatic patients with poor performance status. For patients with good performance status, chemoradiation improves survival compared with radiotherapy alone, particularly when the two modalities are administered concurrently. Sequential chemoradiation is a treatment option for borderline-status patients. Adequate assessment of performance status is important when evaluating treatment options for patients with unresected non-small cell lung cancer. Patients and physicians should have a full discussion of the benefits, limitations, and toxicities of therapy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

UNLABELLED: This evidence-based practice guideline on the use of paclitaxel (Taxol) or docetaxel (Taxotere) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who are candidates for palliative first-line chemotherapy is based on a systematic search and review of literature published in full or in abstract form between 1985 and April 2005. Forty-five randomized trials, including 11 abstracts, were reviewed and clinicians in the province of Ontario, Canada, provided feedback on a draft version of the guideline. Two phase III trials detected a statistically significant survival advantage for a taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel) with best supportive care versus best supportive care alone. Among the nine fully published phase III trials comparing platinum-based chemotherapies, taxane-platinum combinations achieved higher response rates compared with older chemotherapy combinations, although significantly longer survival was observed only for docetaxel-cisplatin compared with vindesine-cisplatin. Response rates and survival were generally not significantly different for taxane-platinum combinations compared with other current chemotherapy combinations, although the toxicity profile of the regimens varied. However, in one large trial, improved tumor response and modest survival and quality of life benefits were associated with docetaxel-cisplatin compared with vinorelbine-cisplatin. No statistically significant survival differences were detected in the three fully published phase III trials comparing a taxane-gemcitabine combination with a taxane-platinum regimen. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) paclitaxel or docetaxel combined with cisplatin is recommended as one of a number of chemotherapy options for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in patients with a good performance status; (ii) carboplatin may be combined with a taxane if a patient is unable or unwilling to take cisplatin; (iii) a taxane-gemcitabine combination may be considered for patients with a contraindication to cisplatin and carboplatin; (iv) no firm recommendation can be made on the optimal dose and schedule of taxane-based chemotherapy; however, commonly used regimens include cisplatin 75 mg/m2 combined with either docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 (24-h infusion) and carboplatin AUC 6 combined with paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 (3-h infusion); (v) a single-agent taxane may be used if combination chemotherapy is considered inappropriate.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

UNLABELLED: An evidence summary was developed for the surgical management of adult patients with diffuse or localized malignant pleural mesothelioma. This evidence summary is based on a systematic search and review of the literature published between 1985 and February 2004. Relevant studies were identified, according to pre-determined criteria by the authors and methodologists. No randomized controlled trials comparing pleurectomy (PL) with extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or comparing surgery with an alternative treatment were identified. Four comparative studies, seven non-comparative prospective studies, and 16 retrospective case series were identified that looked at PL, or EPP, or PL and EPP. Trial results were not pooled due to the heterogeneity of the treatments in the trials and the fact that no trials were randomized and none were designed to directly compare different treatments. External feedback was obtained from Ontario clinicians, and the provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group approved the review. CONCLUSIONS: The role of surgery in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma cannot be precisely defined as the lack of randomized controlled clinical trials makes it impossible to determine whether the use of EPP or PL improves survival or effectively palliates the symptoms of the disease. Future studies of the role of surgery in the treatment of mesothelioma should include evaluations of quality of life.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A systematic review and evaluation of evidence for photodynamic therapy in nonsmall cell lung cancer was undertaken. Two authors selected relevant articles according to predefined criteria. External feedback was obtained from Ontario clinicians and the provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group approved the review. The Group concluded that photodynamic therapy may have a role in treating superficial early stage disease or in palliating symptoms in late stage disease. The safety and effectiveness of photodynamic therapy compared with other treatment modalities remains undefined. Serious adverse effects can occur; therefore, the suitability of patients for this treatment should be carefully assessed.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

UNLABELLED: The Lung Cancer Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care conducted a systematic review of literature published between 1985 and July 2003 and developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline on postoperative radiotherapy in patients with completely resected pathologic stage II or IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Forty-four Ontario clinicians reviewed the draft guideline. Evidence included one meta-analysis of individual patient data (from nine randomized controlled trials) and three randomized controlled trials (two including data reported in the meta-analysis) that compared surgery with or without postoperative radiotherapy. The meta-analysis and one trial detected a significant detriment to survival with postoperative radiotherapy. Two trials detected no survival difference. The meta-analysis detected a significant advantage in local recurrence-free survival (time to local recurrence or death) with surgery alone, although two trials detected a significant advantage in rate of local recurrence with postoperative radiotherapy. Subset analyses from the meta-analysis and one trial suggested that postoperative radiotherapy was detrimental to survival mainly in stage II disease; no benefit or detriment was evident for stage III disease. RECOMMENDATIONS: Postoperative radiation therapy following complete resection of stage II non-small cell lung cancer is not recommended. No definitive recommendation can be made for stage IIIA disease.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

UNLABELLED: An evidence-based practice guideline was developed to identify the optimal combination chemotherapy regimen, schedule of administration, and duration of therapy for the first-line treatment of adults with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. The guideline is based on a systematic search and review of literature published between 1985 and December 2002. Three reviewers selected studies for inclusion in the guideline according to pre-defined criteria. Fifty randomized controlled trials, five in abstract form, were included in the review, and feedback on a draft version of the guideline was obtained from medical oncologists in the province of Ontario, Canada. The most commonly used regimens in clinical trials are cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin(Adriamycin)-vincristine, and etoposide-cisplatin. No combination chemotherapeutic regimen has been conclusively shown to be superior to either of these regimens. Most studies comparing chemoradiation regimens used sequential rather than concurrent thoracic radiotherapy. When treating for cure with chemoradiation, there is evidence from one randomized controlled trial to support the use of etoposide-cisplatin over an anthracycline-containing regimen. There is conflicting evidence concerning a survival advantage for a regimen that alternates cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-vincristine with etoposide-cisplatin compared with either regimen alone. If bolus etoposide-cisplatin is the treatment of choice, evidence from one randomized trial suggests that the optimal sequence of administration is cisplatin followed by etoposide. The use of maintenance chemotherapy is not indicated. There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of dose-intensive regimens outside a clinical trial, to determine the optimal duration of chemotherapy, or to support the routine substitution of carboplatin for cisplatin in combination chemotherapy regimens in this patient population. RECOMMENDATIONS: Etoposide-cisplatin is the preferred chemotherapy regimen for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer when concurrent thoracic radiotherapy is used. It is reasonable to offer the alternation of etoposide-cisplatin with cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-vincristine, provided the administration of radiotherapy concurrent with an anthracycline is avoided.

Asunto(s)