3 ms·

For what part, cutting-edge treatments? Sure. But oncology is a very big field… For example, the majority diagnostic testing guidelines are based on meta-anal

For what part, cutting-edge treatments? Sure. But oncology is a very big field… For example, the majority diagnostic testing guidelines are based on meta-analyses. FYI since you asked to pick one, let's take a look at NCCN. Not sure where you're drawing your conclusion that most evidence is from phase III RCTs: "[Q] Quality and quantity of evidence refers to the number and types of clinical trials relevant to a particular intervention. To determine a score, panel members may weigh the depth of the evidence, i.e., the numbers of trials that address this issue and their design. The scale used to measure quality of evidence is: 5 (High quality): Multiple well-designed randomized trials and/or meta-analyses 4 (Good quality): One or more well-designed randomized trials 3 (Average quality): Low quality randomized trial(s) or well-designed non-randomized trial(s) 2 (Low quality): Case reports or extensive clinical experience 1 (Poor quality): Little or no evidence" "The overall quality of the clinical data and evidence that exist within the field of cancer research is highly variable, both within and across cancer types. Large, well designed, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may provide high-quality clinical evidence in some tumor types and clinical situations. However, much of the clinical evidence available to clinicians is primarily based on data from indirect comparisons among randomized trials, phase II or non-randomized trials, or in many cases, on limited data from multiple smaller trials, retrospective studies, or clinical observations. In some clinical situations, no meaningful clinical data exist and patient care must be based upon clinical experience alone. Thus, in the field of oncology, it becomes critical and necessary (where the evidence landscape remains sparse or suboptimal) to include input from the experience and expertise of cancer specialists and other clinical experts." From an article: "We identified 1124 potential systematic reviews from our survey of the 49 NCCN guidelines for the treatment of cancer by site. Five NCCN guidelines did not cite any systematic reviews." https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-process/development-and-update-of-guidelines https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-process/developme... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2749257 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/27... https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-with-evidence-blocks https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-with-evidence-blo...

Gatsky 3y ago
Well you discount the most important thing in the first line. 'Cutting-edge' is a funny way of saying 'most effective', as if it were somehow irrelevant. I didn't say most evidence is from phase III RCTs, particularly if you include everything that happens in oncology as the denominator, only that meta-analyses were not that relevant. Most of the critical patient facing interventions have the backing of good quality trials, at least where it is reasonable and possible to do a trial. Also one of your citations is seemingly casting doubt on the value of meta-analyses in oncology, so somewhat confused about your point. That paragraph from NCCN is quite interesting. It is describing medicine in general really, and belies the fact that oncology has probably one of the strongest evidence base across all medical fields. Take for example how many stents cardiologists have inserted long after contradictory evidence was available, or how many pointless back operations have been done, or how many people have sat through fruitless psychoanalysis.
- haldujai 3y ago
  > Well you discount the most important thing in the first line. 'Cutting-edge' is a funny way of saying 'most effective', as if it were somehow irrelevant. I'm discounting it for this discussion because your argument is: "meta-analyses are somewhat irrelevant" and "Meta-analyses are mostly there for trainees to notch up a paper." which is completely false. Note a single clinical trial is still only considered "good quality" while multiple trials or meta-analyses are considered "high quality". To address this new point you raised, when something has very promising early results we start using it in treatment (e.g. 3rd gen TKIs in adjuvant NSCLC) but until this weekend we had no 5 year OS survival for adjuvant use. It's entirely possible something one thinks is "most effective" is later proven to not be (gen 1-2 TKIs, HIPEC, etc). > That paragraph from NCCN is quite interesting. It is describing medicine in general really, and belies the fact that oncology has probably one of the strongest evidence base across all medical fields. > Take for example how many stents cardiologists have inserted long after contradictory evidence was available, or how many pointless back operations have been done, or how many people have sat through fruitless psychoanalysis. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by addressing other specialties. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, comprised of multidisciplinary experts from 33 of the leading cancer centers in the country, is unequivocally the authority in oncology and is incredibly well respected. I'm going to defer to their opinion on the quality of evidence available and the hierarchy of evidence. > Also one of your citations is seemingly casting doubt on the value of meta-analyses in oncology, so somewhat confused about your point. The JAMA article states that the methodology in many studies does not meet NCCN/PRISMA criteria which is a well known, this says nothing about the relative value of good-quality meta-analyses (which are far more common now with the PRISMA update). I'm really not sure why you think systematic reviews are irrelevant, this is a very radical viewpoint that I've seen no evidence of. Good meta-analysis > good RCT. The reality is that good quality studies of both types are uncommon in medicine, but the goal is still to use good SRs.

Gatsky 3y ago

Well you discount the most important thing in the first line. 'Cutting-edge' is a funny way of saying 'most effective', as if it were somehow irrelevant. I didn't say most evidence is from phase III RCTs, particularly if you include everything that happens in oncology as the denominator, only that meta-analyses were not that relevant. Most of the critical patient facing interventions have the backing of good quality trials, at least where it is reasonable and possible to do a trial. Also one of your citations is seemingly casting doubt on the value of meta-analyses in oncology, so somewhat confused about your point. That paragraph from NCCN is quite interesting. It is describing medicine in general really, and belies the fact that oncology has probably one of the strongest evidence base across all medical fields. Take for example how many stents cardiologists have inserted long after contradictory evidence was available, or how many pointless back operations have been done, or how many people have sat through fruitless psychoanalysis.

haldujai 3y ago
> Well you discount the most important thing in the first line. 'Cutting-edge' is a funny way of saying 'most effective', as if it were somehow irrelevant. I'm discounting it for this discussion because your argument is: "meta-analyses are somewhat irrelevant" and "Meta-analyses are mostly there for trainees to notch up a paper." which is completely false. Note a single clinical trial is still only considered "good quality" while multiple trials or meta-analyses are considered "high quality". To address this new point you raised, when something has very promising early results we start using it in treatment (e.g. 3rd gen TKIs in adjuvant NSCLC) but until this weekend we had no 5 year OS survival for adjuvant use. It's entirely possible something one thinks is "most effective" is later proven to not be (gen 1-2 TKIs, HIPEC, etc). > That paragraph from NCCN is quite interesting. It is describing medicine in general really, and belies the fact that oncology has probably one of the strongest evidence base across all medical fields. > Take for example how many stents cardiologists have inserted long after contradictory evidence was available, or how many pointless back operations have been done, or how many people have sat through fruitless psychoanalysis. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by addressing other specialties. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, comprised of multidisciplinary experts from 33 of the leading cancer centers in the country, is unequivocally the authority in oncology and is incredibly well respected. I'm going to defer to their opinion on the quality of evidence available and the hierarchy of evidence. > Also one of your citations is seemingly casting doubt on the value of meta-analyses in oncology, so somewhat confused about your point. The JAMA article states that the methodology in many studies does not meet NCCN/PRISMA criteria which is a well known, this says nothing about the relative value of good-quality meta-analyses (which are far more common now with the PRISMA update). I'm really not sure why you think systematic reviews are irrelevant, this is a very radical viewpoint that I've seen no evidence of. Good meta-analysis > good RCT. The reality is that good quality studies of both types are uncommon in medicine, but the goal is still to use good SRs.