Fragility Index analysis for robustness of evidence in Randomized Controlled Trials in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer

Fuente: Wiley Open Access
Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nir Horesh, Justin Dourado, Peter Rogers, Pauline Aeschbacher, Zoe Garoufalia, Rachel Gefen, Ebram Salama, Sameh Hany Emile, Steven D. Wexner
Formato: Artículo Open Access
Publicado: Wiley 2025
Materias:
Acceso en línea:
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
_version_ 1867004776651161600
author Nir Horesh
Justin Dourado
Peter Rogers
Pauline Aeschbacher
Zoe Garoufalia
Rachel Gefen
Ebram Salama
Sameh Hany Emile
Steven D. Wexner
author_facet Nir Horesh
Justin Dourado
Peter Rogers
Pauline Aeschbacher
Zoe Garoufalia
Rachel Gefen
Ebram Salama
Sameh Hany Emile
Steven D. Wexner
Nir Horesh
Justin Dourado
Peter Rogers
Pauline Aeschbacher
Zoe Garoufalia
Rachel Gefen
Ebram Salama
Sameh Hany Emile
Steven D. Wexner
collection Wiley Open Access
contents Fragility Index analysis for robustness of evidence in Randomized Controlled Trials in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer Nir Horesh Justin Dourado Peter Rogers Pauline Aeschbacher Zoe Garoufalia Rachel Gefen Ebram Salama Sameh Hany Emile Steven D. Wexner International Journal of Cancer AbstractRobustness of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial for guiding clinical decisions in rectal cancer. We evaluated the reliability of RCTs cited by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer using the Fragility Index (FI) that quantifies the stability of trial outcomes. RCTs referenced in the latest NCCN guidelines for rectal cancer were reviewed. Data from eligible trials were extracted. FI was calculated to assess the robustness of evidence across different treatment modalities. Sixty‐seven RCTs (published: 1987–2022) involving 16,990 patients were analyzed. Most studies (58.2%) were conducted in Europe. Common treatment areas included metastatic liver disease (28.9%) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (14.9%). Primary outcomes were disease‐free survival and overall survival (OS) in 15 studies each (22.4%), local recurrence rates in 6 (9%), and tumor response in 5 (7.5%). The median FI was 9 (interquartile range [IQR] 2–20). Studies on surgical interventions had the highest median FI (21 [IQR 7–27]) followed by studies on neoadjuvant radiotherapy (19 [IQR 14–25]). Neoadjuvant immunotherapy studies had the lowest median FI of 0, indicating less robust evidence. Notably, surgical intervention studies showed the largest gap between FI and patients lost to follow‐up (21 vs. 13.5), while neoadjuvant immunotherapy studies showed more patients lost to follow‐up than the median FI (0 vs. 5), highlighting the need for stronger evidence. In conclusion, evidence supporting most treatments for rectal cancer in the NCCN guidelines is robust, although neoadjuvant immunotherapy requires further scrutiny due to its low FI. FI offers a nuanced perspective on the reliability of trial outcomes. 10.1002/ijc.35521 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ijc.35521
format Artículo Open Access
id wiley_oa_10_1002_ijc_35521
institution Wiley Open Access
license_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
publishDate 2025
publisher Wiley
record_format wiley_oa
spellingShingle Fragility Index analysis for robustness of evidence in Randomized Controlled Trials in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer
Nir Horesh
Justin Dourado
Peter Rogers
Pauline Aeschbacher
Zoe Garoufalia
Rachel Gefen
Ebram Salama
Sameh Hany Emile
Steven D. Wexner
International Journal of Cancer
Fragility Index analysis for robustness of evidence in Randomized Controlled Trials in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer Nir Horesh Justin Dourado Peter Rogers Pauline Aeschbacher Zoe Garoufalia Rachel Gefen Ebram Salama Sameh Hany Emile Steven D. Wexner International Journal of Cancer AbstractRobustness of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial for guiding clinical decisions in rectal cancer. We evaluated the reliability of RCTs cited by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer using the Fragility Index (FI) that quantifies the stability of trial outcomes. RCTs referenced in the latest NCCN guidelines for rectal cancer were reviewed. Data from eligible trials were extracted. FI was calculated to assess the robustness of evidence across different treatment modalities. Sixty‐seven RCTs (published: 1987–2022) involving 16,990 patients were analyzed. Most studies (58.2%) were conducted in Europe. Common treatment areas included metastatic liver disease (28.9%) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (14.9%). Primary outcomes were disease‐free survival and overall survival (OS) in 15 studies each (22.4%), local recurrence rates in 6 (9%), and tumor response in 5 (7.5%). The median FI was 9 (interquartile range [IQR] 2–20). Studies on surgical interventions had the highest median FI (21 [IQR 7–27]) followed by studies on neoadjuvant radiotherapy (19 [IQR 14–25]). Neoadjuvant immunotherapy studies had the lowest median FI of 0, indicating less robust evidence. Notably, surgical intervention studies showed the largest gap between FI and patients lost to follow‐up (21 vs. 13.5), while neoadjuvant immunotherapy studies showed more patients lost to follow‐up than the median FI (0 vs. 5), highlighting the need for stronger evidence. In conclusion, evidence supporting most treatments for rectal cancer in the NCCN guidelines is robust, although neoadjuvant immunotherapy requires further scrutiny due to its low FI. FI offers a nuanced perspective on the reliability of trial outcomes. 10.1002/ijc.35521 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Fragility Index analysis for robustness of evidence in Randomized Controlled Trials in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for rectal cancer
topic International Journal of Cancer
url https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35521