Erythropoietin or Darbepoetin for patients with cancer - meta-analysis based on individual patient data

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

“…For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48]. For the other ten studies we noted discrepant results, that is, the data reported in the literature or provided by the study authors for the first review [12] were not identical to the overall survival estimates generated in the IPD review [28]. Discrepancies concerned the number of patients randomised per study arm, the number of deaths per study arm and the reported HRs plus CIs, for details see attached data table 1.…”

“…For another study differences are explained by use of different inclusion criteria in the first review and the IPD review [51]. The results obtained for the IPD review [28] were worse (a HR which was less favourable than the previously reported HR) in seven studies [44,47,50,51,56,57,59] and better (a HR which was more favourable compared to the previously reported HR) in three studies [52,53,60]. For the hypothetical meta-analysis we included the available data stepwise into the original review conducted in 2002.…”

“…Four studies [63][64][65][66] were completed at the time of the first review [12], but survival or any other study data had not yet been published. The survival results for these studies became available through ODAC reports published in 2003 [67] and the IPD meta-analysis published in 2009 [28]. Five of these six studies showed detrimental findings, that is, worse survival in patients receiving ESAs than in controls.…”

“…For the 19 studies which had already been included in the first review [12] we compared the results reported in the different sources. For the six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58], no additional data were retrieved for the IPD review because the studies were too small for inclusion [27,28]. The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis.…”

“…The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis. For 13 studies [29, 44, 46-48, 50-53, 56, 57, 59, 60] we had results stemming from the first review [12] and the IPD meta-analysis [28]. For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48].…”

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

“…For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48]. For the other ten studies we noted discrepant results, that is, the data reported in the literature or provided by the study authors for the first review [12] were not identical to the overall survival estimates generated in the IPD review [28]. Discrepancies concerned the number of patients randomised per study arm, the number of deaths per study arm and the reported HRs plus CIs, for details see attached data table 1.…”

“…For another study differences are explained by use of different inclusion criteria in the first review and the IPD review [51]. The results obtained for the IPD review [28] were worse (a HR which was less favourable than the previously reported HR) in seven studies [44,47,50,51,56,57,59] and better (a HR which was more favourable compared to the previously reported HR) in three studies [52,53,60]. For the hypothetical meta-analysis we included the available data stepwise into the original review conducted in 2002.…”

“…Four studies [63][64][65][66] were completed at the time of the first review [12], but survival or any other study data had not yet been published. The survival results for these studies became available through ODAC reports published in 2003 [67] and the IPD meta-analysis published in 2009 [28]. Five of these six studies showed detrimental findings, that is, worse survival in patients receiving ESAs than in controls.…”

“…For the 19 studies which had already been included in the first review [12] we compared the results reported in the different sources. For the six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58], no additional data were retrieved for the IPD review because the studies were too small for inclusion [27,28]. The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis.…”

“…The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis. For 13 studies [29, 44, 46-48, 50-53, 56, 57, 59, 60] we had results stemming from the first review [12] and the IPD meta-analysis [28]. For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48].…”

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

“…For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48]. For the other ten studies we noted discrepant results, that is, the data reported in the literature or provided by the study authors for the first review [12] were not identical to the overall survival estimates generated in the IPD review [28]. Discrepancies concerned the number of patients randomised per study arm, the number of deaths per study arm and the reported HRs plus CIs, for details see attached data table 1.…”

“…For another study differences are explained by use of different inclusion criteria in the first review and the IPD review [51]. The results obtained for the IPD review [28] were worse (a HR which was less favourable than the previously reported HR) in seven studies [44,47,50,51,56,57,59] and better (a HR which was more favourable compared to the previously reported HR) in three studies [52,53,60]. For the hypothetical meta-analysis we included the available data stepwise into the original review conducted in 2002.…”

“…Four studies [63][64][65][66] were completed at the time of the first review [12], but survival or any other study data had not yet been published. The survival results for these studies became available through ODAC reports published in 2003 [67] and the IPD meta-analysis published in 2009 [28]. Five of these six studies showed detrimental findings, that is, worse survival in patients receiving ESAs than in controls.…”

“…For the 19 studies which had already been included in the first review [12] we compared the results reported in the different sources. For the six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58], no additional data were retrieved for the IPD review because the studies were too small for inclusion [27,28]. The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis.…”

“…The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis. For 13 studies [29, 44, 46-48, 50-53, 56, 57, 59, 60] we had results stemming from the first review [12] and the IPD meta-analysis [28]. For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48].…”

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

“…For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48]. For the other ten studies we noted discrepant results, that is, the data reported in the literature or provided by the study authors for the first review [12] were not identical to the overall survival estimates generated in the IPD review [28]. Discrepancies concerned the number of patients randomised per study arm, the number of deaths per study arm and the reported HRs plus CIs, for details see attached data table 1.…”

“…For another study differences are explained by use of different inclusion criteria in the first review and the IPD review [51]. The results obtained for the IPD review [28] were worse (a HR which was less favourable than the previously reported HR) in seven studies [44,47,50,51,56,57,59] and better (a HR which was more favourable compared to the previously reported HR) in three studies [52,53,60]. For the hypothetical meta-analysis we included the available data stepwise into the original review conducted in 2002.…”

“…Four studies [63][64][65][66] were completed at the time of the first review [12], but survival or any other study data had not yet been published. The survival results for these studies became available through ODAC reports published in 2003 [67] and the IPD meta-analysis published in 2009 [28]. Five of these six studies showed detrimental findings, that is, worse survival in patients receiving ESAs than in controls.…”

“…For the 19 studies which had already been included in the first review [12] we compared the results reported in the different sources. For the six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58], no additional data were retrieved for the IPD review because the studies were too small for inclusion [27,28]. The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis.…”

“…The results for these six studies [43,45,49,54,55,58] are therefore identical in the first review and the hypothetical meta-analysis. For 13 studies [29, 44, 46-48, 50-53, 56, 57, 59, 60] we had results stemming from the first review [12] and the IPD meta-analysis [28]. For three studies the number of patients randomised and the number of events were identical and there were only minor differences in effect estimates (HRs or CIs) [29,46,48].…”