Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Currently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are enrolling patients with a focus on patients with low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score values (ASPECTS), such as TENSION (NCT03094715), TESLA (NCT03805308), and IN EXTREMIS [1, 2]. If theses RCTs confirm a thrombectomy treatment effect in patients with large infarcts, the imaging requirements for patient selection would decrease leading to speeding up the treatment processes and outcomes for all patients and further enlarge the overall number of patients eligible for thrombectomy.
In their letter the Calgary stroke team reported results of their recent survey on the influence of age on endovascular treatment decision-making and the willingness to randomize patients with low ASPECTS [3]. This survey was conducted during an interventional course, with the vast majority of participants being interventionalists. The results clearly showed a considerable reluctance among interventionalists to withhold thrombectomy treatment in younger patients suggesting that younger patients are much more likely to be treated outside the RCT and thus would be underrepresented in RCTs. This opinion is quite alarming as it would harm the generalizability of RCTs by introducing a selection bias generating a potential treatment effect size decrease and a false negative study result.
Undoubtedly, higher age decreases the chances of a good clinical outcome, particularly in patients with a low ASPECTS [4, 5]. It is not established, however, that the thrombectomy treatment effect decreases with increasing age [6]. Actually, the HERMES results showed no indications of a lower treatment effect in older patients [4]. It is important to avoid confusing the rate of good outcome, known from clinical experience, and the actual treatment effect versus best medical treatment alone (Fig. 1). Younger patients have a better outcome but the outcome is also better when treated with best medical treatment alone.
The clinical experiences of better clinical outcomes in younger than in older patients are perfectly compatible with higher treatment effects in the younger patient group. This hypothesis is reflected implicitly by the survey opinion (Fig. 1); however, the clinical observations are equally compatible with the same effect size in older and younger patients (Fig. 1). Even if the “survey opinion” is more intuitive, the alternative scenario is realistic as well.
Besides the individual responsibility of the physician of correctly selecting patients for the study, all studies should require a logfile in which all eligible patients (e.g. ASPECTS 3‑5) are documented, independent of the fact if they were included in the trial or not (as it is the case in TENSION). Thereby, a potential selection bias can be identified during the study with the chance to notify respective centers. Also, in retrospect an effect of cherry-picking on the results of the study can be identified.
The alarming results of the survey should be considered with some caution. First, the results are based on an informal voting during a meeting of interventionalists, which might not reflect the opinion of all neuroradiologists. Furthermore, this survey was exclusively done with interventional neuroradiologists. Stroke neurologists, who frequently enroll patients in trials may have voted differently and were not included.
Physicians involved in patient enrolment have a high responsibility and should avoid cherry-picking because of its profoundly negative impact on the external validity of the trial results. The study results will impact tens of thousands of stroke patients in the years to come. Moreover, cherry-picking of patients rests on a weak scientific foundation. Actually, it is not known who the “cherry patients” actually are, yet.
Change history
21 June 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-021-01028-y
References
Bendszus M, Bonekamp S, Berge E, Boutitie F, Brouwer P, Gizewski E et al. A randomized controlled trial to test efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in stroke with extended lesion and extended time window. Int J Stroke. 2019;14:87–93.
Bendszus M, Fiehler J, Thomalla G. New interventional stroke trials. Clin Neuroradiol. 2019;29:1.
Ospel JM, Kashani N, Almekhlafi M, Chapot R, Goyal M. Influence of age on evt treatment decision in patients with low aspects results of a multinational survey and its implications. Clin Neuroradiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-019-00872-3. [Epub ahead of print]
Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, Dippel DW, Mitchell PJ, Demchuk AM et al. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet. 2016;387:1723–31.
Wollenweber FA, Tiedt S, Alegiani A, Alber B, Bangard C, Berrouschot J et al. Functional outcome following stroke thrombectomy in clinical practice. Stroke. 2019;50:2500–6.
Turc G, Bhogal P, Fischer U, Khatri P, Lobotesis K, Mazighi M et al. European stroke organisation (ESO)- european society for minimally invasive neurological therapy (ESMINT) guidelines on mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. J Neurointerv Surg. 2019;11:535–8.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors received a research grant Horizon 2020 grant No. 754640 (TENSION Thrombectomy in Stroke with Extended Lesion and Extended Time Window) from the European Union. J. Fiehler has received fees as a consultant from Acandis, Cerenovus, Microvention, Medtronic, and Penumbra and research grants from Microvention, Medtronic and Stryker. G. Thomalla has received lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer and compensation for consultancy from Acandis and Stryker. M. Bendszus received research support from the German Research Foundation (DFG), European Union (EU), Medtronic, Stryker, Hopp Foundation, Guerbet, Siemens and Novartis. He received personal fees for lectures and consultancy from Novartis, Guerbert, Bayer, Teva, Boehringer, BBraun, Grifols and Roche, outside of the submitted work.
Ethical standards
Approval by an ethics committee was not applicable. The submission has not been published before.
Additional information
The original online version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Fiehler, J., Thomalla, G. & Bendszus, M. Cherry-picking the Wrong Patients?. Clin Neuroradiol 30, 41–42 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-020-00878-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-020-00878-2