Simultaneous Comparison of Efficacy and Adverse Events of Interventions for Patients with Esophageal Cancer: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

  • Doosti-Irani, Amin (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Mansournia, Mohammad Ali (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Rahimi-Foroushani, Abbas (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Cheraghi, Zahra (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Holakouie-Naieni, Kourosh (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2016.03.07


Background: Esophageal cancer is one of the most serious malignancies. Due to the aggressive nature of this cancer, the prognosis is poor. A network meta-analysis with simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments can help determine better treatment options that have higher effects on overall survival of patients with lower adverse events. The aim of this review is to simultaneously compare efficacy and adverse events of treatment interventions for esophageal cancer. Materials and Methods: In this review, only randomized control trials (RCT) will be considered for network meta-analysis. All international electronic databases including Medline, Web of Sciences, Scopus, Cochran's library, EMBASE and Cancerlit will be searched to find randomized control trials which compared two or more treatment interventions for esophageal cancer. A network plot will be drawn for visual representation of all available treatment interventions. Bayesian approach will be used to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Treatment effects (e.g. hazard ratio for time to event outcomes, risk ratio for binary outcomes, and rate ratio for count outcomes with 95% credible interval) will be reported. Moreover, cumulative probability of the treatment ranks will be reported using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) graphs. Consistency assumption will be assessed by the loop-specific and design-by-treatment interaction approaches. Conclusions: The results of this study may be helpful for the patients, clinicians and health policy makers in selecting treatments that have the best effect on survival and lowest adverse events.


Esophageal cancer;treatment outcomes;network meta-analysis


  1. Alaeddini F, Holakouie-Nieni K, Mahmoodi M, et al (2001). Esophageal cancer AND type of food and beverage consumption. Arch Irn Med, 14, 197-200.
  2. Arnold M, Soerjomataram I, Ferlay J, et al (2014). Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histological subtype in 2012. Gut Gutjnl, 2014, 308124.
  3. Baker SG, Kramer BS (2002). The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: if A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C? BMC Med Res Methodol, 2, 13.
  4. Baker W, Michael White C, Cappelleri J, et al (2009). Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression. Int J Clin Pract, 63, 1426-34.
  5. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 1088-101.
  6. Chaimani A, Higgins J, Mavridis D, et al (2013). Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PloS One, 8, 76654.
  7. Chen J, Sankaranarayanan R, Shen Z (1998). [Population-based cancer survival: an analysis of 16,922 cases]. Zhonghua zhong liu za zhi, 20, 202-6.
  8. Egger M, Smith G, Schneider M, et al (1997). Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629-34.
  9. Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ (2003). Esophageal cancer. New Engl J Med, 349, 2241-52.
  10. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al (2010). Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer, 127, 2893-917.
  11. Fiorica F, Di Bona D, Schepis F, et al (2004). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut, 53, 925-30.
  12. Gebski V, Burmeister B, Smithers BM, et al (2007). Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol, 8, 226-34.
  13. Gilbert FJ, Thompson A, editors. Scottish audit of gastric and oesophageal cancer. Report 1997e2000. A prospective audit. Edinburgh: Scottish Audit of Gastric and Oesophageal Cancer Steering Group; 2002.
  14. Gilks WR 2005. Markov chain monte carlo, Wiley Online Library.
  15. Greer SE, Goodney PP, Sutton JE, et al (2005). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: a metaanalysis. Surgery, 137, 172-7.
  16. Hara H, Tahara M, Daiko H, et al (2013a). Phase II feasibility study of preoperative chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Science, 104, 1455-60.
  17. Hara H, Tahara M, Daiko H, et al (2013b). Phase II feasibility study of preoperative chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Sci, 104, 1455-60.
  18. Higgins JP, Green S 2008. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Wiley Online Library.
  19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327, 557-60.
  20. Holakouie-Nieni K, Mohammad K, Nasseri K, et al (1989). The comparison between the oesophageal resection and the radiotherapy. Iran J Public Health, 18, 33-48.
  21. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, et al (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? CHIP Documents, 6, 1-37.
  22. Islami F, Pourshams A, Nasrollahzadeh D, et al (2009). Tea drinking habits and oesophageal cancer in a high risk area in northern Iran: population based case-control study. Bmj, 338.
  23. Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, et al (2008). Bayesian metaanalysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value in Health, 11, 956-64.
  24. Lu G, Ades AE (2006). Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons. J Am Statistical Association, 101, 447-59.
  25. Lu H, Fang L, Wang X, et al (2014). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing early and late concurrent thoracic radiotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin/carboplatin chemotherapy for limited-disease small-cell lung cancer. Mol Clin Oncol, 2, 805-10.
  26. Malthaner RA, Wong RK, Rumble RB, et al (2004). Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med, 2, 35.
  27. Mao WM, Zheng WH, Ling ZQ (2011). Epidemiologic risk factors for esophageal cancer development. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 2461-6.
  28. Mavridis D, White IR, Higgins JP, et al (2014). Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta-analysis. Stat Med, 34, 721-41.
  29. Mosavi-Jarrahi A, Mohagheghi MA (2006). Epidemiology of esophageal cancer in the high-risk population of Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 7, 375.
  30. Nasrollahzadeh D, Kamangar F, Aghcheli K, et al (2008). Opium, tobacco, and alcohol use in relation to oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in a high-risk area of Iran. British J Cancer, 98, 1857-63.
  31. National Cancer Institue. Esophageal Cancer Treatment (PDQ(R)) [Online].
  32. Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, et al (2013). Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet, 381, 400-12.
  33. Ries LAG, Young JL, Keel GE, Eisner MP, Lin YD, Horner M-J (editors). SEER Survival Monograph: Cancer Survival Among Adults: U.S. SEER Program, 1988-2001, Patient and Tumor Characteristics. National Cancer Institute, SEER Program, NIH Pub. No. 07-6215, Bethesda, MD, 2007.
  34. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP (2011). Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multipletreatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol, 64, 163-71.
  35. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP (2009). A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol, 62, 857-64.
  36. Samadi F, Babaei M, Yazdanbod A, et al (2007). Survival rate of gastric and esophageal cancers in Ardabil province, North-West of Iran. Arch Iran Med, 10, 32-7.
  37. Shibata T, Kokubu A, Saito S, et al (2011). NRF2 mutation confers malignant potential and resistance to chemoradiation therapy in advanced esophageal squamous cancer. Neoplasia, 13, 864-26.
  38. Siewert JR, Ott K. Are squamous and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus the same disease? Seminars Radiat Oncol, 2007, 38-44.
  39. Spineli LM, Higgins JP, Cipriani A, et al (2013). Evaluating the impact of imputations for missing participant outcome data in a network meta-analysis. Clinical Trials, 10, 378-88.
  40. Sterne JAC, Harbord RM (2004). Funnel plots in meta-analysis. Stata J, 4, 127-41.
  41. Tepper J, Krasna MJ, Niedzwiecki D, et al (2008). Phase III trial of trimodality therapy with cisplatin, fluorouracil, radiotherapy, and surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer: CALGB 9781. J Clin Oncol, 26, 1086-92.
  42. Umar SB, Fleischer DE (2008). Esophageal cancer: epidemiology, pathogenesis and prevention. Nature Clin Practice Gastroenterol Hepatol, 5, 517-26.
  43. van Hagen P, Hulshof M, Van Lanschot J, et al (2012). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. New Engl J Med, 366, 2074-84.
  44. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, et al (2013). Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol, 42, 332-45.
  45. White IR, Welton NJ, Wood AM, et al (2008). Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta-analysis--part 2: hierarchical models. Stat Med, 27, 728-45.

Cited by

  1. Complications of stent placement in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis vol.12, pp.10, 2017,