Debulking hysterectomy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy for FIGO stage (2019) IB3/II cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: With an estimated 570,000 new cases reported globally in 2018, and increasing numbers of new cases in countries without established human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes, cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide. The majority of global disease burden (around 85%) is in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), with estimates of cervical cancer being the second most common cancer in women in such regions. As it commonly affects younger women, cervical cancer has the greatest impact on years of life lost (YLL) and adverse socioeconomic outcomes compared to all other cancers in women. Management of cervical cancer depends on tumour stage. Radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy is the standard primary treatment modality for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (2019) 1B1 to 1B3 disease. However, for larger primary tumours, radical hysterectomy is less commonly recommended. This is mainly due to a high incidence of unfavourable histopathological parameters, which require adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) (chemotherapy given with radiotherapy treatment). CCRT is the standard of care and is widely used as first-line treatment for cervical cancer considered to be not curable with surgery alone (i.e.those with locally advanced disease). However, a sizable cohort of women managed with primary CCRT will have residual disease within the cervix following treatment. Debulking' hysterectomy to remove (debulk) the primary tumour in locally advanced disease, prior to CCRT, may be an alternative management strategy, avoiding the potential need for surgery for residual cervical disease following CCRT, which may be more extensive, or have increased morbidity due to CCRT. However, this strategy may subject more women to unnecessary surgery and its inherent risks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and harms of debulking hysterectomy (simple or radical) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2021) and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2021). We also searched other registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists up to 12 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or non-randomised studies (NRSs) comparing debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for locally advanced FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical malignancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied Cochrane methodology, with two review authors independently assessing whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We planned to apply standard Cochrane methodological procedures to analyse data and risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer. We did not identify any studies assessing the validity of debulking hysterectomy for these women.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for or against debulking hysterectomy followed by CCRT versus CCRT alone for FIGO (2019) stage IB3/II cervical cancer.

The double burden of malnutrition among adolescents: analysis of data from the Global School-Based Student Health and Health Behavior in School-Aged Children surveys in 57 low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Adults and young children in countries experiencing the nutrition transition are known to be affected simultaneously by undernutrition and overnutrition. Adolescence is a critical period for growth and development. Yet, it is unknown to what extent this double burden of malnutrition affects adolescents in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the macrolevel contextual factors associated with the double burden of malnutrition. Objective: The aim was to quantify the magnitude of the double burden of malnutrition among adolescents and to examine the potential sources of heterogeneity in prevalence estimates across LMICs. Design: We used individual-participant data from the Global School-Based Student Health and Health Behavior in School-Aged Children surveys conducted in 57 LMICs between 2003 and 2013, comprising 129,276 adolescents aged 12-15 y. Pooled estimates of stunting, thinness, or both; overweight or obesity; and concurrent stunting and overweight or obesity were calculated overall, by regions, and stratified by sex, with random-effects meta-analysis. Guided by UNICEF's conceptual framework for child malnutrition, we used ecological linear regression models to examine the association between macrolevel contextual factors (internal conflict, lack of democracy, gross domestic product, food insecurity, urbanization, and survey year) and stunting, thinness, and overweight and obesity prevalence, respectively. Results: The prevalence of stunting was 10.2% (95% CI: 8.3%, 12.2%) and of thinness was 5.5% (95% CI: 4.3%, 6.9%). The prevalence of overweight or obesity was 21.4% (95% CI: 18.6%, 24.2%). Between 38.4% and 58.7% of the variance in adolescent malnutrition was explained by macrolevel contextual factors. The prevalence of concurrent stunting and overweight or obesity was 2.0% (95% CI: 1.7%, 2.5%). Conclusions: The double burden of malnutrition among adolescents in LMICs is common. Context-sensitive implementation and scale-up of interventions and policies for the double burden of malnutrition are needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal to end malnutrition in all of its forms by 2030. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03346473.