Peter van Rossum, Radiation Oncologist at Amsterdam UMC, shared on LinkedIn:
“Are we really comparing different treatments in early-stage NSCLC meta-analyses, or simply different patients?
Our new editorial in Lung Cancer argues that meta-analyses in early-stage NSCLC create an illusion of certainty. Even sophisticated propensity score matching cannot fully account for why one patient undergoes surgery, another SABR, and another thermal ablation.
As long as evidence is dominated by non-randomized comparisons, pooled hazard ratios can only be interpreted as structured summaries of uncertainty, not definitive treatment rankings.
Happy to share this editorial, together with Famke Schneiders and Suresh Senan. We hope it stimulates discussion on how to interpret comparative evidence while we await the results of ongoing randomized trials.”
Title: The limits of pooled evidence in early-stage NSCLC: are we comparing treatments or patients?
Authors: Peter van Rossum, Famke L. Schneiders, Suresh Senan
Read the full article.
