Evidence Hub

Local Treatment of the Primary Tumor for Patients with Metastatic Cancer (PRIME-TX): A Meta-analysis

J. Ryckman, T. Thomas, Ming Wang, Xuesong Wu, S. Siva, D. Spratt, B. Slotman, S. Pal et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2022

4,952 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Local treatment of the primary tumor for patients with metastases is controversial, and prospective data across many disease sites have conflicting conclusions regarding benefits.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past fifty years. Inclusion criteria were multi-institutional RCTs of patients with metastatic disease receiving systemic therapy randomized to addition of local treatment to the primary tumor. Two primary outcome measures, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), were quantitatively assessed using random effects and meta-analyses were conducted using the inverse variance method for pooling. Secondary endpoints were qualitatively assessed and included toxicity and patient-reported quality of life. Exploratory analyses were performed by treatment type and volume of disease.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 4,952 patients were included (n=1,558 received radiotherapy, 913 received surgery as primary tumor treatment). OS and PFS were not significantly improved from treatment of the primary (OS: HR 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80-1.05; PFS: HR 0.88, 95%CI: 0.72-1.07). Assessment of primary local treatment modality demonstrated a significant difference in summary effect size on PFS between trials using surgery (HR 1.15, 95%CI 0.99-1.33) as compared to radiotherapy (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.56-0.96) as the local treatment modality (p=0.005). In low…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,952 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free