Jump to content

Walsh et al. (2010): Use of alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 treatment to stimulate immune infiltration into head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Difference between revisions

From CAMIH
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
|Reference=Publication: Use of alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 treatment to stimulate immune infiltration into head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
|Reference=Publication: Use of alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 treatment to stimulate immune infiltration into head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
}}
}}
=Brief summary=
=Brief summary=
In this study, two groups of neck and head tumor patients were compared with regard to the progression-free interval. One group received vitamin D for 3 weeks before the tumor operation and the other group received nothing. In the vitamin D group, it took significantly longer for the disease to progress. As only a very small sample was examined (16 patients per group), this study only provides initial indications of the effectiveness of vitamin D prior to surgery.
In this study, two groups of neck and head tumor patients were compared with regard to the progression-free interval. One group received vitamin D for 3 weeks before the tumor operation and the other group received nothing. In the vitamin D group, it took significantly longer for the disease to progress. As only a very small sample was examined (16 patients per group), this study only provides initial indications of the effectiveness of vitamin D prior to surgery.
Line 23: Line 24:
|Exclusion criteria=Had received immunotherapy or radiation treatment in the previous 3 weeks or concurrent malignancies
|Exclusion criteria=Had received immunotherapy or radiation treatment in the previous 3 weeks or concurrent malignancies
|N randomized=32
|N randomized=32
|Analysis=ITT Analysis
|Analysis=NI
|Specifications on analyses=NI
|Specifications on analyses=The specific analysis method is not stated in the study, however, according to the authors, all included patients were evaluated at the end of the study.
|Countries of data collection=NI
|Countries of data collection=NI
|LoE=1b Oxford 2009
|LoE=1b Oxford 2009
Line 60: Line 61:
|Side Effects / Interactions=No side effects
|Side Effects / Interactions=No side effects
|Order number=1
|Order number=1
|Arm topic=Vitamin D
}}
}}
{{Arm
{{Arm
Line 72: Line 74:
|Side Effects / Interactions=NA
|Side Effects / Interactions=NA
|Order number=1
|Order number=1
|Arm topic=Vitamin D
}}
}}
{{Arm Overview}}
{{Arm Overview}}
Line 84: Line 87:
median time to recurrence for the control arm was 181 days, whereas the median time to recurrence for the intervention arm was 620 days
median time to recurrence for the control arm was 181 days, whereas the median time to recurrence for the intervention arm was 620 days
|Results after intervention=NI
|Results after intervention=NI
|Bias arising from the randomization process=some concerns
|Bias arising from the randomization process=high risk
|Bias due to deviation from intended intervention (assignment to intervention)=some concerns
|Bias due to deviation from intended intervention (assignment to intervention)=some concerns
|Bias due to deviation from intended intervention (adhering to intervention)=NA
|Bias due to deviation from intended intervention (adhering to intervention)=NA
Line 93: Line 96:
|Overall RoB judgment=high risk
|Overall RoB judgment=high risk
|Order number=1
|Order number=1
|Outcome topic=Vitamin D
}}
}}
{{Outcome Overview}}
{{Outcome Overview}}
Line 104: Line 108:


{{Further points for assessing the study
{{Further points for assessing the study
|Samples sufficiently large=?
|power analysis performed=No
|power analysis performed=?
|Sample size corresponds to power analysis=NA
|Reasons given for samples being too small according to power analysis=NA
|Samples sufficiently large=No
|Ethnicity mentioned=No
|Other explanations for an effect besides the investigated intervention=Yes
|Possibility of attention effects=Probably no
|Possibility of placebo effects=Yes
|Other reasons=There was no placebo, the control arm was not treated; possible group differences in vitamin D levels
|Correct use of parametric and non-parametric tests=Yes
|Correction for multiple testing=NA
|Measurement of compliance=No
|Consistent reporting in numbers=Yes
|Comprehensive and coherent reporting=No
|Cross-over=No
|sufficient washout period=NA
|Tested for carry-over effects=NA
|Were sequence effects tested=NA
|Effect sizes reported=No
|Were side effects systematically recorded=No
|Side effects taken into account in the interpretation of the results=No
|Ethics / CoI / Funding=NI
|reasons given for samples being too small according to power analysis=?
|reasons given for samples being too small according to power analysis=?
|Ethnicity mentioned=?
|Possibility of attention effects=?
|Possibility of placebo effects=?
|Other reasons=?
|Testing for normal distribution=?
|Testing for normal distribution=?
|Correct application of statistical tests=?
|Correct application of statistical tests=?
|Correction for multiple testing=?
|Measurement of compliance=?
|Blinding reliable=?
|Blinding reliable=?
|Check whether blinding was successful=?
|Check whether blinding was successful=?
|Consistent reporting in numbers=?
|sufficient washout period=?
|Tested for carry-over effects=?
|Were sequence effects tested=?
|Comprehensive and coherent reporting=?
|Were side effects systematically recorded=?
|Effect sizes reported=?
|Side effects taken into account in the interpretation of the results=?
|mono- or multicentric=?
|mono- or multicentric=?
|Ethics / CoI / Funding=?
}}
}}
{{Additional Notes}}
{{Additional Notes}}

Latest revision as of 12:50, 29 November 2024


Reference ↗
Title Use of alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 treatment to stimulate immune infiltration into head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
Topic Vitamin D
Author Walsh, JE, Clark, A-M, Day, TA, Gillespie, MB, Young, MRI
Year 2010
Journal Human immunology
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humimm.2010.04.008

Brief summary

In this study, two groups of neck and head tumor patients were compared with regard to the progression-free interval. One group received vitamin D for 3 weeks before the tumor operation and the other group received nothing. In the vitamin D group, it took significantly longer for the disease to progress. As only a very small sample was examined (16 patients per group), this study only provides initial indications of the effectiveness of vitamin D prior to surgery.

In dieser Studie wurden zwei Gruppen von Hals-Kopf Tumor Patienten hinsichtlich des progressionsfreien Intervalls miteinander verglichen. Eine Gruppe bekam 3 Wochen vor der der Tumoroperation 3 Wochen lang Vitamin D und die andere Gruppe bekam nichts. Bei der Vitamin-D-Gruppe dauerte es bedeutsam länger bis zum Fortschreiten der Krankheit. Da nur eine sehr kleine Stichprobe untersucht wurde (16 Patienten pro Gruppe), liefert diese Studie nur erste Hinweise auf die Wirksamkeit von Vitamin D vor einer Operation.

Study Design

Prospective / Retrospective Prospective: forward-looking, examples include clinical trials, cohort studies, and long-term observational studies;</br>Retrospective: backward-looking, relying on existing data, examples include case-control studies and retrospective cohort studies Prospective
Monocentric / Multicentric Monocentric: conducted in one center/ hospital; </br>Multicentric: conducted in multiple centers/ hospitals Monocentric
Blinding No: Open, all parties are aware of group assignments;</br>Single: one party is unaware of group assignments (generally participants);</br>Double: two parties are unaware of group assignments (generally the participants and the researchers); </br>Triple: concealing group assignment from additional parties No
Is randomized Yes
Cross-over Participants alternate between different treatment groups or conditions over a specified period, allowing each participant to serve as their own control No
Number of arms 2

Study characteristics

Inclusion criteria Patients with newly diagnosed head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who were being scheduled for surgery
Exclusion criteria Had received immunotherapy or radiation treatment in the previous 3 weeks or concurrent malignancies
N randomized 32
Analysis PP: Per Protocol analysis, i.e. only participants included who adhered to the study protocol.</br>ITT: Intention-to-treat analysis, i.e. all randomized participants included regardless of any drop-outs or changes in assignment.</br>mITT: modified Intention-to-treat analysis can refer to analyses in which participants with missing outcome data are excluded or it can refer to analyses in which only participants who received at least one treatment dose are included. In this case, participants dropped out of the study prematurely for reasons unrelated to the treatment. NI
Specifications on analyses The specific analysis method is not stated in the study, however, according to the authors, all included patients were evaluated at the end of the study.
Countries of data collection NI
LoE Level of evidence 1b Oxford 2009
Outcome timeline Data collection times NI

Characteristics of participants

Setting Refers to cancer therapy setting.</br>- Curative therapy: aims to completely eradicate a disease and achieve a full recovery; </br>- Neo-adjuvant therapy: form of curative therapy, given before the primary treatment for cancer (usually surgery); </br>- Adjuvant therapy: form of curative therapy, given after the primary treatment for cancer (usually surgery); </br>- Palliative therapy: focuses on providing relief from symptoms and improving the quality of life for patients, without necessarily targeting the underlying disease; </br>- Active surveillance: involves close monitoring of disease progression without any intervention (typically used for prostate cancer);</br>- No therapy setting: Patients who completed therapy/are currently not in cancer treatment, cancer survivors. Curative
Types of cancer "Other Cancers" means that only a subpopulation was specified, but further unspecified cancer types were included Head and Neck Cancers - Oral Cancer
Cancer stages Early Stage: generally refers to cancer that is localized to the area where it started, mostly stages I and II;</br>Advanced Stage: cancer that has spread beyond its original site, mostly stages III and IV, with stage IV indicating distant metastasis Early Stage, Advanced Stage
Specifications on cancer stages The range of disease stages, based on pathologic evaluation, did not differ among patients enrolled in the two arms
Comorbidities No
Current cancer therapies Surgery
Specifications on cancer therapies Surgical excision
Previous cancer therapies Chemotherapy, No therapy, Radiation therapy
Gender Mixed
Gender specifications 44% female, 56% male
Age groups Adults (18+)
Age groups specification Range: 45-92

Intervention arm: mean: 66 Control arm: mean: 63

Arms

Arm type Active control: group receives active treatment; </br>Passive control: for example treatment as usual, waiting control, no treatment Intervention
Number of participants (arm) N randomized 16
Drop-out Number of participants who left the study for any reason or did not provide information on every data collection date 0
Drop-out reasons NA
Intervention 1,25(OH)2 D
Dosage and regime 4 μg of 1,25(OH)2 D for each of 3 sequential days, followed by 4 days of no treatment
One-time application No
Duration in days For long-term interventions, the number of days is an estimation.</br>A value of -999 indicates that the exact duration cannot be extracted from the study due to ambiguous or incomplete information. See Outcome timeline or Dosage and regime for further information. 21
Side effects / Interactions No side effects
Arm type Active control: group receives active treatment; </br>Passive control: for example treatment as usual, waiting control, no treatment Passive control
Number of participants (arm) N randomized 16
Drop-out Number of participants who left the study for any reason or did not provide information on every data collection date 0
Drop-out reasons NA
Intervention Untreated
Dosage and regime NA
One-time application No
Duration in days For long-term interventions, the number of days is an estimation.</br>A value of -999 indicates that the exact duration cannot be extracted from the study due to ambiguous or incomplete information. See Outcome timeline or Dosage and regime for further information. 21
Side effects / Interactions NA

Outcomes

DFS (Disease-Free Survival)

Outcome type As specificed by the authors NI
Outcome specification Time between surgical treatment and recurrence of detectable disease
Type of measurement Observation
Results during intervention - Results during intervention means that the time of data collection is during or shortly after the period of the intervention (e.g. on the last day or a few days after). The results therefore still relate to the direct effects of the intervention.</br>- Results after intervention means there is a longer break between the time of data collection and the end of the intervention, e.g. more than a week. The results relate more to long-term effects.</br>- If a categorization in Results during vs. after intervention is not possible (e.g. survival data), the results are summarized under Results after intervention under the headline "Overall". Longer time to recurrence in the intervention arm than in the control arm (p = 0.048),

median time to recurrence for the control arm was 181 days, whereas the median time to recurrence for the intervention arm was 620 days

Results after intervention - Results during intervention means that the time of data collection is during or shortly after the period of the intervention (e.g. on the last day or a few days after). The results therefore still relate to the direct effects of the intervention.</br>- Results after intervention means there is a longer break between the time of data collection and the end of the intervention, e.g. more than a week. The results relate more to long-term effects.</br>- If a categorization in Results during vs. after intervention is not possible (e.g. survival data), the results are summarized under Results after intervention under the headline "Overall". NI
Risk of Bias Assessment: Cochrane RoB tool 2.0
Bias arising from the randomization process high risk
Bias due to deviation from intended intervention (assignment to intervention) some concerns
Bias due to deviation from intended intervention (adhering to intervention) NA
Bias due to missing outcome data low risk
Bias in measurement of the outcome low risk
Bias in selection of the reported result some concerns
Other sources of bias NA
Overall RoB judgment high risk

Funding and Conflicts of Interest

Funding Supported by the Clinical Science and Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development Services of the Department of Veterans Affairs and by grants R01CA85266 and R01CA128837 from the National Institutes of Health to MRIY
Conflicts of Interest NI

Further points for assessing the study

Sample

Power analysis performed No
- Sample size corresponds to power analysis NA
- Reasons for insufficient sample size based on power analysis NA
If no power analysis performed: at least moderate sample size (n >= 30 per arm) No
Ethnicity mentioned No

Alternative Explanation

Other explanations for an effect besides the investigated intervention Yes
- Possibility of attention effects Probably no
- Possibility of placebo effects Yes
- Other reasons There was no placebo, the control arm was not treated; possible group differences in vitamin D levels

Statistics

Correct use of parametric and non-parametric tests Testing for normal distribution only necessary if parametric tests are used, NI: use of parametric tests without report of normal distribution testing Yes
Correction for multiple testing NA
Measurement of compliance No
Consistent reporting in numbers (figures, flowchart, abstract, results) Yes
Comprehensive and coherent reporting No
Cross-over No
- Sufficient washout period NA
- Tested for carry-over effects NA
- Tested for sequence effects NA

Interpretation of results

Effect sizes reported (clinical vs. statistical significance) No
Side effects systematically recorded No
Side effects considered in result interpretation No
Ethics votum NI


Additional Notes

PRO:

  • No dropout

CONTRA:

  • No blinding, control group receives nothing
  • No information on vitamin D level, possible group differences
  • Very small sample size
  • Poor report quality, e.g. hardly any information on baseline characteristics