O impacto da pandemia da COVID-19 nos exames de rastreamento do câncer no Brasil: um estudo comparativo dos cânceres de mama, próstata e colo de útero / The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening tests in Brazil: a comparative study of breast, prostate, and cervical cancers

Objetivo: Analisar a influência da pandemia da COVID-19 na execução dos exames de rastreamento e diagnóstico dos cânceres de próstata, mama e colo uterino na população brasileira. Métodos: Estudo analítico transversal e quantitativo com levantamento do número desses exames realizados pelo SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde). Os dados foram extraídos do Datasus nos períodos de pré-pandemia (março/2019 a fevereiro/2020) e pandemia (março/2020 a fevereiro/2021). Foram extraídos os números de exames realizados mês a mês e comparados os períodos pré-pandemia com o de pandemia. Foi realizada uma análise estatística descritiva, e as médias mensais de exames realizados nos dois períodos foram comparadas usando o teste t de Student. Resultados: Na comparação entre os períodos pré-pandemia e de pandemia, houve diminuição de média de 45,2% no número de exames citopatológicos, (194.978 exames por mês a menos; p < 0,00001), de 44,4% nos exames de mamografia (142.015 mamografias a menos por mês; p < 0,00001) e de 24,4% nos exames de antígeno prostático específico (PSA) (148.815 exames a menos por mês; p = 0,0012). Conclusão: A influência da pandemia gerou uma diminuição considerável no número de exames de rastreamento, mamografia, dosagem de PSA e citopatológico, o que deverá se traduzir em aumento nos casos de doença avançada, com graves consequências negativas para os pacientes e para o sistema de saúde.

Objective: To analyze the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the number of screening and diagnostic cancer tests performed for prostate, breast and cervical cancer in the Brazilian population. Methods: This was a transversal analytical and quantitative study on the number of screening and diagnostic cancer tests performed in the public Brazilian health care system SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde). Data were collected from the Datasus (online SUS database) during pre-pandemic (March/2019 to February/2020) and pandemic periods (March/2020 to February/2021). We obtained the number of tests performed monthly for each of the tests and compared the two periods. Descriptive statistics were employed and the monthly average number of tests performed in each period were compared using the T Student test. Results: Comparing the pre-pandemic levels with pandemic levels, we found that there was a 45.2% decrease in the number of Papanicolaou (PAP smear) tests (194,978 less exams per month, p < 0,00001), 44.4% decrease in mammograms (142,015 less tests per month, p < 0,00001), and a reduction of 24.4% in the number of prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests per month (minus 148,815 exams performed, p < 0.0012). Conclusion: There was a statistically significant reduction in the number of screening/diagnostic mammograms, PAP smears and PSA performed during the pandemic period, compared to the period before COVID-19. This reduction may result in an increase in the number of cases diagnosed at an advanced stage, with grave consequences for the patients and for the sustainability of the healthcare system.

WITHDRAWN: Chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy for metastatic malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant melanoma, one of the most aggressive of all skin cancers, is increasing in incidence throughout the world. Surgery remains the cornerstone of curative treatment in earlier stages. Metastatic disease is incurable in most affected people, because melanoma does not respond to most systemic treatments. A number of novel approaches are under evaluation and have shown promising results, but they are usually associated with increased toxicity and cost. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy has been reported to improve treatment results, but it is still unclear whether evidence exists to support this choice, compared with chemotherapy alone. No language restrictions were imposed. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of therapy with chemotherapy and immunotherapy (chemoimmunotherapy) versus chemotherapy alone in people with metastatic malignant melanoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (14 February 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (2003 to 30 January 2006 ), EMBASE (2003 to 20 July 2005) and LILACS (1982 to 20 February 2006). References, conference proceedings, and databases of ongoing trials were also used to locate trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials that compared the use of chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy on people of any age, diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed each study to determine whether it met the pre-defined selection criteria, with differences being resolved through discussion with the review team. Two authors independently extracted the data from the articles using data extraction forms. Quality assessment included an evaluation of various components associated with biased estimates of treatment effect. Whenever possible, a meta-analysis was performed on the extracted data, in order to calculate a weighed treatment effect across trials. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 2625 participants. We found evidence of an increase of objective response rates in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy, in comparison with people treated with chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact of these increased response rates was not translated into a survival benefit. We found no difference in survival to support the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy in the systemic treatment of metastatic melanoma, with a hazard ratio of 0.89 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.11, P = 0.31). Additionally, we found increased hematological and non-hematological toxicities in people treated with chemoimmunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We failed to find any clear evidence that the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy increases survival of people with metastatic melanoma. Further use of combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy should only be done in the context of clinical trials.

Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a frequent adverse event experienced by people with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, and is a potentially life-threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs), such as granulocyte-CSF (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF), are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cell lines in the bone marrow. Clinical trials have addressed the question of whether the addition of a CSF to antibiotics could improve outcomes in individuals diagnosed with febrile neutropenia. However, the results of these trials are conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding G-CSF or GM-CSF to standard treatment (antibiotics) when treating chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in individuals diagnosed with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the search in March 2014 and covered the major electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and SCI. We contacted experts in hematology and oncology and also scanned the citations from the relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed meta-analysis of the selected studies using Review Manager 5 software. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (15 comparisons) including a total of 1553 participants addressing the role of CSF plus antibiotics in febrile neutropenia were included. Overall mortality was not improved by the use of CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.16) P = 0.19; 13 RCTs; 1335 participants; low quality evidence). A similar finding was seen for infection-related mortality (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.20) P = 0.23; 10 RCTs; 897 participants; low quality evidence). Individuals who received CSF plus antibiotics were less likely to be hospitalized for more than 10 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.95) P = 0.03; 8 RCTs; 1221 participants; low quality evidence) and had more number of participants with a more faster neutrophil recovery (RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.81) P = 0.004; 5 RCTs; 794 participants; moderate quality evidence) than those treated with antibiotics alone. Similarly, participants receiving CSF plus antibiotics had shorter duration of neutropenia (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.70 (95% CI -2.65 to -0.76) P = 0.0004; 9 RCTs; 1135 participants; moderate quality evidence), faster recovery from fever (SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.90 to -0.09) P value = 0.02; 9 RCTs; 966 participants; moderate quality evidence) and shorter duration of antibiotics use (SMD -1.50 (95% CI -2.83 to -0.18) P = 0.03; 3 RCTs; 457 participants; low quality evidence) compared with participants receiving antibiotics alone. We found no significant difference in the incidence of deep venous thromboembolism (RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.72 to 3.93) P = 0.23; 4 RCTs; 389 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. We found higher incidence of bone or joint pain or flu-like symptoms (RR 1.59 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.42) P = 0.03; 6 RCTs; 622 participants; low quality evidence) in individuals treated with CSF plus antibiotics compared with those treated with antibiotics alone. Overall, the methodological quality of studies was moderate to low across different outcomes. The main reasons to downgrade the quality of evidence were inconsistency across the included studies and imprecision of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of a CSF plus antibiotics in individuals with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia had no effect on overall mortality, but reduced the amount of time participants spent in hospital and improved their ability to achieve neutrophil recovery. It was not clear whether CSF plus antibiotics had an effect on infection-related mortality. Participants receiving CSFs had shorter duration of neutropenia, faster recovery from fever and shorter duration of antibiotics use.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus nonamino bisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw and hypocalcemia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE (December 2009 to October 2011) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (all years, latest Issue September 2011) to identify all randomized trials in MM up to October 2011 using a combination of text and MeSH terms. We also handsearched relevant meeting proceedings (December 2009 to October 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the role of bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) under a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was explored using metaregression. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we included 2 studies (2464 patients) that were not part of our last Cochrane review published in 2010. In this review we included 16 RCTs comparing bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and 4 RCTs with a different bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 20 included RCTs enrolled 6692 patients. Overall methodological quality of reporting was moderate. Thirty per cent (6/20) of trials reported the method of generating the randomization sequence. Forty per cent (8/20) of trials had adequate allocation concealment. Withdrawals and dropouts were described in 60% (12/20) of trials. Pooled results showed no direct effect of bisphosphonates on OS compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; P = 0.64). However, there was a statistically significant heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I(2) = 55%, P = 0.01) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a metaregression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found indicating an OS benefit with zoledronate (P = 0.058). This provided a further rationale for performing network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head to head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed superior OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86) and placebo (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.98). However, there was no difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate a beneficial effect of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment in improving PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.19; P = 0.18) There was no heterogeneity among trials reporting PFS estimates (I(2) = 35%, P = 0.20).Pooled analysis demonstrated a beneficial effect of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; I(2) = 7%), skeletal-related events (SRE) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; I(2) = 2%) and amelioration of pain (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; I(2) = 63%). The network meta-analysis did not show any difference in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (5 RCTs, 3198 patients) between bisphosphonates. Rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw in observational studies (9 studies, 1400 patients) ranged from 0% to 51%. The pooled results (6 RCTs, 1689 patients) showed no statistically significant increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60; P = 0.11).The pooled results (3 RCTs, 1002 patients) showed no statistically significant increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74). The network meta-analysis did not show any differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of bisphosphonates in patients with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Assuming a baseline risk of 20% to 50% for vertebral fracture without treatment, between 8 and 20 MM patients should be treated to prevent vertebral fracture(s) in one patient. Assuming a baseline risk of 31% to 76% for pain amelioration without treatment, between 5 and 13 MM patients should be treated to reduce pain in one patient. With a baseline risk of 35% to 86% for SREs without treatment, between 6 and 15 MM patients should be treated to prevent SRE(s) in one patient. Overall, there were no significant adverse effects associated with the administration of bisphosphonates identified in the included RCTs. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or nonaminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate appears to be superior to placebo and etidronate in improving OS.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) is a well established procedure used to obtain tissue for the histological diagnosis of carcinoma of the prostate. Despite the fact that TRPB is generally considered a safe procedure, it may be accompanied by traumatic and infective complications, including asymptomatic bacteriuria (bacteria in the urine), urinary tract infection (UTI), transitory bacteremia (bacteria in the blood), fever episodes, and sepsis (pathogenic microorganisms or their toxins in the blood). Although infective complications after TRPB are well known, there is uncertainty about the necessity and effectiveness of routine prophylactic antibiotics and their adverse effects, as well as a clear lack of standardization. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotic treatment in TRPB. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search covered the principal electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Experts were consulted and references from the relevant articles were scanned. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of men who underwent TRPB and received prophylactic antibiotics or placebo/no treatment, were selected, and all RCTs looking at one type of antibiotic versus another, including comparable dosages, routes of administration, frequency of administration, and duration of antibiotic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers (ELZ, OACC) independently selected included trials and extracted study data. Any disagreements were resolved by a third party (NRNJ). MAIN RESULTS: Overall, more than 3500 references were considered and 19 original reports with a total of 3599 patients were included.There were 9 trials analysing antibiotics versus placebo/no treatment, with all outcomes significantly favouring antibiotic use (P < 0.05) (I(2) = 0%), including bacteriuria (risk ratio (RR) 0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.42), bacteremia (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.92), fever (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64), urinary tract infection (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.62), and hospitalization (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.55). Several classes of antibiotics were effective prophylactically for TRPB, while the quinolones, with the highest number of studies (5) and patients (1188), were the best analysed. For 'antibiotics versus enema', we analysed four studies with a limited number of patients. The differences between groups for all outcomes were not significant. For 'antibiotic versus antibiotic + enema', only the risk of bacteremia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.75) was diminished in the 'antibiotic + enema group'. Seven trials reported the effects of short-course (1 day) versus long-course (3 days) antibiotics. Long course was significantly better than short-course treatment only for bacteriuria (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.73). For 'single versus multiple dose', there was significantly greater risk of bacteriuria for single-dose treatment (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.33). Comparing oral versus systemic administration - intramuscular injection (IM), or intravenous (IV) - of antibiotics, there were no significant differences in the groups for bacteriuria, fever, UTI and hospitalization. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in preventing infectious complications following TRPB. There is no definitive data to confirm that antibiotics for long-course (3 days) are superior to short-course treatments (1 day), or that multiple-dose treatment is superior to single-dose.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are currently used as supportive therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). However, the exact clinical role of bisphosphonates in MM remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This update of the first review published in 2002. We have also analyzed observational studies targeting osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the literature using the methods outlined in the previous review. We also searched observational studies or case reports examining ONJ. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs with a parallel design related to the use of bisphosphonate in myeloma. We also selected observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonates related to ONJ. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We have reported pooled data using either hazard ratio or risk ratio and, when appropriate, as absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to prevent or to cause a pathological event. We have assessed statistical heterogeneity and reported I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 17 trials with 1520 patients analyzed in bisphosphonates groups, and 1490 analyzed in control groups. In comparison with placebo/no treatment, the pooled analysis demonstrated the beneficial effect of bisphosphonates on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR= 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.89), P = 0.001), total skeletal related events (SREs) (RR= 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.89), P < 0.0001) and on amelioration of pain (RR = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.95), P = 0.01). We found no significant effect of bisphosphonates on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), hypercalcemia or on the reduction of non-vertebral fractures. The indirect meta-analyses did not find the superiority of any particular type of bisphosphonate over others. Only two RCTs reported ONJ. The identified observational studies suggested that ONJ may be a common event (range: 0% to 51%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adding bisphosphonates to the treatment of MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain but not mortality. Assuming the baseline risk of 20% to 50% for vertebral fracture without treatment, we estimate that between eight and 20 MM patients should be treated to prevent vertebral fracture(s) in one patient. Assuming the baseline risk of 31% to 76% for pain amelioration without treatment, we estimate that between five to 13 MM patients should be treated to reduce pain in one patient. Also, with the baseline risk of 35% to 86% for SREs without treatment, we estimate that between six and 15 MM patients should be treated to prevent SRE(s) in one patient. No bisphoshphonate appears to be superior to others.

Amifostine reduces side effects and improves complete response rate during radiotherapy: results of a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of amifostine in diminishing radiotherapy side effects and whether or not it protects the tumor. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 included randomized controlled trials, comprising 1451 patients, comparing the use of radiotherapy vs. radiotherapy plus amifostine for cancer treatment. RESULTS: The use of amifostine significantly reduced the risk of developing mucositis (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.48; p < 0.00001), esophagitis (OR, 0.38; CI, 0.26-0.54; p < 0.00001), acute xerostomia (OR, 0.24; CI, 0.15-0.36; p < 0.00001), late xerostomia (OR, 0.33; CI, 0.21-0.51; p < 0.00001), dysphagia (OR, 0.26; CI, 0.07-0.92; p = 0.04), acute pneumonitis (OR, 0.15; CI, 0.07-0.31; p < 0.00001) and cystitis (OR, 0.17; CI, 0.09-0.32; p < 0.00001). There was no difference in overall response rate between the groups. However, complete response rate was superior for patients using amifostine (OR, 1.81; CI, 1.10-2.96; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that amifostine significantly reduces the side effects of radiation therapy. The efficacy of radiotherapy was not itself affected by the use of this drug and patients receiving amifostine were able to achieve higher rates of complete response.

A pesquisa / Research

O texto traz uma reflexão sobre os principais momentos da execução experimental, e aborda seqüencialmente: a) o que é a pesquisa?, b) por que fazer pesquisa?, c) como a pesquisa pode ser útil posteriormente?, d) quais são as etapas da pesquisa?, e) quem serão os autores da pesquisa? Finaliza citando a importância da análise de resultados e sua inserção no contexto da coletividade

Optimal search strategy for clinical trials in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS)

Objective: To define and disseminate the optimal search strategy for clinical trials in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature (LILACS). This strategy was elaborated based on the optimal search strategy for MEDLINE recommended by Cochrane Collaboration for the identification of clinical trials in electronic databases. Design: Technical information. Setting: Clinical Trials and Meta-Analysis Unit, Federal University of Spo Paulo, in conjunction with the Brazilian Cochrane Center, Säo Paulo, Brazil. (http://www.epm.br/cochrane). Data: LILACS/CD-ROM (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science information Database), 27th edition, January 1997, edited by BIREME (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Center). LILACS indexes 670 journals in the region, with abstracts in English, Portuguese or Spanish; only 41 overlap in the MEDLINE-EMBASE. Of the 168.902 citations since 1982, 104,016 are in human trials, and 38,261 citations are potentiality clinical trials. Search strategy was elaborated combining headings with text word in three languages, adapting the interface of the LILACS. We will be working by locating clinical trials in LILACS for Cochrane Controlled Trials Database. This effort is being coordinated by the Brazilian Cochrane Center.