outcomes (; ). In both studies the median overall survival and the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than 20 months (Table 51). The studies of MTA include a very small number of patients and although crude comparisons can be drawn to estimates presented in studies of a similar population, it is not possible to provide an estimate of comparative effectiveness. In terms of prognostic factors affecting survival, Yang et al () found that tumours ≤ 35 mm in diameter were associated with better survival than tumours >35 mm (p = 0.016). The distribution of patients with tumours >35 mm across the two studies will affect the consistency of outcomes if tumour size is indeed a prognostic factor. In the study by Han et al () seven patients (25%) had tumours greater than 35 mm in diameter (subgroup analyses were not reported) whereas in Yang et al () 51 per cent of patients had tumours greater than 35 mm in diameter. It is not clear whether the distribution of tumours larger than 35 mm in the study by Yang or Han might be more reflective of the general spectrum of patients that might be expected to receive MTA. Five included case series studies of RFA reported a median overall survival time, and two reported cancer-specific survival time, in patients treated for inoperable early stage NSCLC. A summary of the median overall and cancer-specific survival times are reported in Table 51. The studies of RFA included small numbers of patients, were not adjusted for confounding factors, and did not have a relevant comparator arm. Therefore, the existing evidence cannot provide a reliable estimate for the comparative effectiveness across studies, only an indicative estimate of the observed survival in patients that were treated with RFA. Overall survival was not reported in the included radiotherapy studies for population one.
outcomes (; ). In both studies the median overall survival and the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than 20 months (Table 51). The studies of MTA include a very small number of patients and although crude comparisons can be drawn to estimates presented in studies of a similar population, it is not possible to provide an estimate of comparative effectiveness. In terms of prognostic factors affecting survival, Yang et al () found that tumours ≤ 35 mm in diameter were associated with better survival than tumours >35 mm (p = 0.016). The distribution of patients with tumours >35 mm across the two studies will affect the consistency of outcomes if tumour size is indeed a prognostic factor. In the study by Han et al () seven patients (25%) had tumours greater than 35 mm in diameter (subgroup analyses were not reported) whereas in Yang et al () 51 per cent of patients had tumours greater than 35 mm in diameter. It is not clear whether the distribution of tumours larger than 35 mm in the study by Yang or Han might be more reflective of the general spectrum of patients that might be expected to receive MTA. Five included case series studies of RFA reported a median overall survival time, and two reported cancer-specific survival time, in patients treated for inoperable early stage NSCLC. A summary of the median overall and cancer-specific survival times are reported in Table 51. The studies of RFA included small numbers of patients, were not adjusted for confounding factors, and did not have a relevant comparator arm. Therefore, the existing evidence cannot provide a reliable estimate for the comparative effectiveness across studies, only an indicative estimate of the observed survival in patients that were treated with RFA. Overall survival was not reported in the included radiotherapy studies for population one.