Our aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments currently licensed in Europe and recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the first-line treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2001 to 2010 was carried out. Relative treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using standard meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison methodology. A total of 23 RCTs were included: 18 trials compared platinum-based chemotherapy, two compared pemetrexed and three compared gefitinib. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between any of the four third-generation chemotherapy regimens. There is statistically significant evidence that pemetrexed+platinum increases OS compared with gemcitabine+platinum. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between gefitinib and docetaxel+platinum or between gefitinib and paclitaxel+platinum. There is a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib compared with docetaxel+platinum and gefitinib compared with paclitaxel+platinum. Due to reduced generic pricing, third-generation chemotherapy regimens (except vinorelbine) are still competitive options for most patients. This research provides a comprehensive evidence base, which clinicians and decision-makers can use when deciding on the optimal first-line chemotherapy treatment regimen for patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Background Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed. Objective The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars. Methods Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care. Results The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group’s lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out. Limitations Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking. Conclusions The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy. Future work Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

No abstract

have greater benefits for women. Study strengths include the large nationally representative cohort followed from birth and prospective measures of CSEP, PF and covariates. However, the current examination based on a complete case analysis, disregards missing data, which will be addressed in future work.

Reports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA programme findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service'.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website:

Table 96 has been removed as it includes incorrect hazard ratios caused by a reversal of the hazard ratio calculations. However, this does not impact on any of the clinical or economic results reported.

The aim of the Leeds Beckett Repository is to provide open access to our research, as required by funder policies and permitted by publishers and copyright law.