A phase 1 study of regorafenib and sildenafil in adults with advanced solid tumors.

The purpose of this study is to establish the recommended phase 2 dose for regorafenib in combination with sildenafil for patients with advanced solid tumors. Secondary outcomes included identification of antitumor effects of regorafenib and sildenafil, toxicity of the combination, determination of PDE5 expression in tumor samples, and the impact of sildenafil on the pharmacokinetics of regorafenib. This study was a phase 1, open-label single-arm dose-escalation trial using a 3 + 3 design. Additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) until a total of 12 patients were treated at the MTD. A total of 29 patients were treated in this study. The median duration of treatment was 8 weeks. The recommended phase 2 doses determined in this study are regorafenib 160 mg daily with sildenafil 100 mg daily. The most common toxicities included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (20 patients, 69%) and hypophosphatemia (18 patients, 62%). Two patients (7%) experienced grade 4 lipase increase. Objective responses were not observed; however, 14 patients (48%) had a period of stable disease during the study. Stable disease for up to 12 months was observed in patients with ovarian cancer as well as up to 20 months for a patient with cervical cancer. The combination of regorafenib and sildenafil at the recommended phase 2 dose is safe and generally well tolerated. Disease control in patients with gynecologic malignancies was especially encouraging. Further evaluation of the combination of regorafenib and sildenafil in gynecologic malignancies is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02466802.

Bubble devices versus other pressure sources for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Several types of pressure sources, including underwater bubble devices, mechanical ventilators, and the Infant Flow Driver, are used for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to preterm infants with respiratory distress. It is unclear whether the use of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, or mortality and other morbidity.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for reducing treatment failure and associated morbidity and mortality in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2023, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1946 to 6 January 2023), Embase (1974 to 6 January 2023), Maternity & Infant Care Database (1971 to 6 January 2023), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 6 January 2023). We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing bubble CPAP with other pressure sources (mechanical ventilators or Infant Flow Driver) for the delivery of nasal CPAP to preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for effects on treatment failure, all-cause mortality, neurodevelopmental impairment, pneumothorax, moderate-severe nasal trauma, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving a total of 1437 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 88). The methods used to generate the randomisation sequence and ensure allocation concealment were unclear in about half of the trial reports. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of bias in all of the included trials. The trials took place during the past 25 years in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (five trials) and Iran (four trials). The studied pressure sources were commercially available bubble CPAP devices versus a variety of mechanical ventilator (11 trials) or Infant Flow Driver (4 trials) devices.  Meta-analyses suggest that the use of bubble CPAP compared with mechanical ventilator or Infant Flow Driver CPAP may reduce the rate of treatment failure (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.95; (I² = 31%); RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 13 trials, 1230 infants; low certainty evidence). The type of pressure source may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36 (I² = 0%); RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 10 trials, 1189 infants; low certainty evidence). No data were available on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analysis suggests that the pressure source may not affect the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.34 (I² = 0%); RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 14 trials, 1340 infants; low certainty evidence). Bubble CPAP likely increases the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.82 (I² = 17%); RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome 14, 95% CI 9 to 33; 8 trials, 753 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The pressure source may not affect the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.10 (I² = 0%); RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 7 trials, 603 infants; low certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low level of certainty about the effects of bubble CPAP versus other pressure sources on the risk of treatment failure and most associated morbidity and mortality for preterm infants, further large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform context- and setting-relevant policy and practice.

Masks versus prongs as interfaces for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Nasal masks and nasal prongs are used as interfaces for providing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress, either as primary support after birth or as ongoing support after endotracheal extubation from mechanical ventilation. It is unclear which type of interface is associated with lower rates of CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nasal masks versus nasal prongs for reducing CPAP treatment failure, nasal trauma, or mortality and other morbidity in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing masks versus prongs as interfaces for delivery of nasal CPAP in newborn preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) with or at risk of respiratory distress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. treatment failure, 2. all-cause mortality, and 3. neurodevelopmental impairment. Our secondary outcomes were 4. pneumothorax, 5. moderate-severe nasal trauma, 6. bronchopulmonary dysplasia, 7. duration of CPAP use, 8. duration of oxygen supplementation, 9. duration of hospitalisation, 10. patent ductus arteriosus receiving medical or surgical treatment, 11. necrotising enterocolitis, 12. severe intraventricular haemorrhage, and 13. severe retinopathy of prematurity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials with 1604 infants. All trials were small (median number of participants 118). The trials occurred after 2001 in care facilities internationally, predominantly in India (eight trials). Most participants were preterm infants of 26 to 34 weeks' gestation who received nasal CPAP as the primary form of respiratory support after birth. The studied interfaces included commonly used commercially available masks and prongs. Lack of measures to blind caregivers or investigators was a potential source of performance and detection bias in all the trials. Meta-analyses suggested that use of masks compared with prongs may reduce CPAP treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 8 trials, 919 infants; low certainty). The type of interface may not affect mortality prior to hospital discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.22; 7 trials, 814 infants; low certainty). There are no data on neurodevelopmental impairment. Meta-analyses suggest that the choice of interface may result in little or no difference in the risk of pneumothorax (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.93; 5 trials, 625 infants; low certainty). Use of masks rather than prongs may reduce the risk of moderate-severe nasal injury (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71; 10 trials, 1058 infants; low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; 7 trials, 843 infants; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data provide low-certainty evidence that use of masks compared with prongs as the nasal CPAP interface may reduce treatment failure and nasal injury, and may have little or no effect on mortality or the risk of pneumothorax in newborn preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress. The effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia is very uncertain. Large, high-quality trials would be needed to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography: The IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study.

IMPORTANCE: Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing can lead to problems of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Short, noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or transrectal ultrasonography might overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of PSA testing, MRI, and ultrasonography as screening tests for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, population-based, blinded cohort study was conducted at 7 primary care practices and 2 imaging centers in the United Kingdom. Men 50 to 69 years of age were invited for prostate cancer screening from October 10, 2018, to May 15, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: All participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI (T2 weighted and diffusion), and ultrasonography (B-mode and shear wave elastography). The tests were independently interpreted without knowledge of other results. Both imaging tests were reported on a validated 5-point scale of suspicion. If any test result was positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed. Additional image fusion-targeted biopsies were performed if the MRI or ultrasonography results were positive. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was the proportion of men with positive MRI or ultrasonography (defined as a score of 3-5 or 4-5) or PSA test (defined as PSA ≥3 µg/L) results. Key secondary outcomes were the number of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancers detected if each test was used exclusively. Clinically significant cancer was defined as any Gleason score of 3+4 or higher. RESULTS: A total of 2034 men were invited to participate; of 411 who attended screening, 408 consented to receive all screening tests. The proportion with positive MRI results (score, 3-5) was higher than the proportion with positive PSA test results (72 [17.7%; 95% CI, 14.3%-21.8%] vs 40 [9.9%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.2%]; P < .001). The proportion with positive ultrasonography results (score, 3-5) was also higher than the proportion of those with positive PSA test results (96 [23.7%; 95% CI, 19.8%-28.1%]; P < .001). For an imaging threshold of score 4 to 5, the proportion with positive MRI results was similar to the proportion with positive PSA test results (43 [10.6%; 95% CI, 7.9%-14.0%]; P = .71), as was the proportion with positive ultrasonography results (52 [12.8%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.5%]; P = .15). The PSA test (≥3 ng/mL) detected 7 clinically significant cancers, an MRI score of 3 to 5 detected 14 cancers, an MRI score of 4 to 5 detected 11 cancers, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 detected 9 cancer, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 detected 4 cancers. Clinically insignificant cancers were diagnosed by PSA testing in 6 cases, by an MRI score of 3 to 5 in 7 cases, an MRI score of 4 to 5 in 5 cases, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 in 13 cases, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 in 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, when screening the general population for prostate cancer, MRI using a score of 4 or 5 to define a positive test result compared with PSA alone at 3 ng/mL or higher was associated with more men diagnosed with clinically significant cancer, without an increase in the number of men advised to undergo biopsy or overdiagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer. There was no evidence that ultrasonography would have better performance compared with PSA testing alone.

Bleomycin-induced lung injury treated with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ultra-protective ventilator settings.

Bleomycin treats malignancies, such as germ cell tumours and Hodgkin lymphoma. While efficacious, it can cause severe drug-induced lung injury. We present a 42-year-old patient with stage IIB seminoma treated with radical orchiectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin. His postbleomycin course was complicated by the rapid onset of hypoxic respiratory failure, progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) support. Although the patient was treated with high dose systemic steroids and ultra-protective ventilator strategies to minimise ventilator-induced lung injury while on VV-ECMO, his lung injury failed to improve. Care was withdrawn 29 days later. Lung autopsy revealed diffuse organising pneumonia. We found six case reports (including this one) of bleomycin-induced lung injury requiring VV-ECMO with a cumulative survival of 33% (2/6). While VV-ECMO may be used to bridge patients to recovery or lung transplant, the mortality is high.

The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Cochrane Neonatal was first established in 1993, as one of the original review groups of the Cochrane Collaboration. In fact, the origins of Cochrane Neonatal precede the establishment of the collaboration. In the 1980's, the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at Oxford, led by Dr. Iain Chalmers, established the "Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials" (ODPT), a register of virtually all randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine to provide a resource for reviews of the safety and efficacy of interventions used in perinatal care and to foster cooperative and coordinated research efforts in the perinatal field [1]. An effort that was clearly ahead of its time, ODPT comprised four main elements: a register of published reports of trials; a register of unpublished trials; a register of ongoing and planned trials; and data derived from pooled overviews (meta-analyses) of trials. This core effort grew into the creation of the seminal books, "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" as well as "Effective Care of the Newborn Infant" [2,3]. As these efforts in perinatal medicine grew, Iain Chalmers thought well beyond perinatal medicine into the creation of a worldwide collaboration that became Cochrane [4]. The mission of the Cochrane Collaboration is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence (www.cochrane.org). Cochrane Neonatal has continued to be one of the most productive review groups, publishing between 25 tpo to 40 new or updated systematic reviews each year. The impact factor has been steadily increasing over four years and now rivals most of the elite journals in pediatric medicine. Cochrane Neonatal has been a worldwide effort. Currently, there are 404 reviews involving 1206 authors from 52 countries. What has Cochrane done for babies? Reviews from Cochrane Neonatal have informed guidelines and recommendations worldwide. From January 2018 through June 2020, 77 international guidelines cited 221 Cochrane Neonatal reviews. These recommendations have included recommendations of the use of postnatal steroids, inhaled nitric oxide, feeding guidelines for preterm infants and other core aspects of neonatal practice. In addition, Cochrane Reviews has been the impetus for important research, including the large-scale trial of prophylactic indomethacin therapy, a variety of trials of postnatal steroids, trials of emollient ointment and probiotic trials [6]. While justifiably proud of these accomplishments, one needs to examine the future contribution of Cochrane Neonatal to the neonatal community. The future of Cochrane Neonatal is inexorably linked to the future of neonatal research. Obviously, there is no synthesis of trials data if, as a community, we fail to provide the core substrate for that research. As we look at the current trials' environment, fewer randomized controlled trial related to neonates are being published in recent years. A simple search of PubMed, limiting the search to "neonates" and "randomized controlled trials" shows that in the year 2000, 321 randomized controlled trials were published. These peaked five years ago, in 2015, with close to 900 trials being published. However, in 2018, only 791 studies are identified. Does this decrease represent a meaningful change in the neonatal research environment? Quite possibly. There are shifting missions of clinical neonatology at academic medical institutions, at least in the United States, with a focus on business aspects as well as other important competing clinical activities. Quality improvement has taken over as one of the major activities at both private and academic neonatal practices. Clearly, this is a needed improvement. All units at levels need to be dedicated to improving the outcomes of the sick and fragile population we care for. However, this need not be at the expense of formal clinical trials. It is understandable that this approach would be taken. Newer interventions frequently relate to complex systems of care and not the simple single interventions. Even trials that might traditionally have been done as randomized controlled trials, such as the introduction of a new mode of ventilation, are in reality complex challenges to the ability of institutions to create systems to adapt to these new technologies. Cost of doing trials has always been a barrier. The challenging regulatory and ethical environment contributes to these problems as well [7]. Despite these barriers, how does the research agenda of the neonatal community move forward in the 21st Century? We need to reassess how we create and disseminate our research findings. Innovative trial designs will allow us to address complex issues that we may not have tackled with conventional trials. Adaptive designs may allow us to look at potentially life-saving therapies in a way that feel more efficient and more ethical [8]. Clarifying issues such as the use of inhaled nitric oxide in preterm infants would be greatly served if we even knew whether or not there are hypoxemic preterm infant who would benefit from this therapy [9]. Current trials do not suggest so, yet current practice tells us that a significant number of these babies will receive inhaled nitric oxide [10-13]. Adaptive design, such as those done with trials of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), would allow us to quickly assess whether, in fact, these therapies are life-saving and allow us to consider whether or not further trials are needed [14,15]. Our understanding that many interventions involve entire systems approaches does not relegate us only to doing quality improvement work. Cluster designs may allow us to test more complex interventions that have usually been under the purview of quality improvement [16-18]. Cluster trials are well suited for such investigations and can be done with the least interruption to ongoing care. Ultimately, quality improvement is the application of the best evidence available (evidence-based medicine is "what to do" and evidence-based practice is "how to do"). [19,20]. Nascent efforts, such as the statement on "embedding necessary research into culture and health" (the ENRICH statement) call for the conduct of large, efficient pragmatic trials to evaluate neonatal outcomes, as in part called for in the ALPHA Collaboration [21,22]. This statement envisions an international system to identify important research questions by consulting regularly with all stakeholders, including patients, public health professionals, researchers, providers, policy makers, regulators, funders of industry. The ENRICH statement envisions a pathway to enable individuals, educational institutions, hospitals and health-care facilities to confirm their status as research-friendly by integrating an understanding of trials, other research and critical thinking and to teaching learning and culture, as well as an engagement with funders, professional organizations and regulatory bodies and other stake holders to raise awareness of the value of efficient international research to reduce barriers to large international pragmatic trials and other collaborative studies. In the future, if trials are to be done on this scale or trials are prospectively designed to be analyzed together, core outcome measures must be identified and standardized. That clinical trials supply estimates of outcomes that are relevant to patients and their families is critical. In addition, current neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. A given measure can have multiple widely used definitions. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (or chronic lung disease just to add to the confusion) quickly comes to mind [23,24]. The use of multiple definitions when attempting to measure the same outcome prevents synthesis of trial results and meta-analysis and hinders efforts to refine our estimates of effects. Towards that end, Webbe and colleagues have set out to develop a core outcome set for neonatal research [25]. Key stakeholders in the neonatal community reviewed multiple outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies. Based on consensus, key outcome measures were identified, including survival, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, retinopathy or prematurity, gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment or blindness, hearing impairment or deafness, chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Trials registration has to be a continued focus of the neonatal community. Trials registration allows for systematic reviewers to understand whether or not reporting bias has occurred [26]. It also allows for transparent incorporation of these core outcome measures. Ultimately, trials registration should include public reporting of all of these core outcomes and, in the future, access to data on an individual level such that more sophisticated individual patient data meta-analysis could occur. Lastly, there is no reason to see clinical trials and quality improvement as separate or exclusive activities. In fact, in the first NICQ Collaborative, conducted by Vermont Oxford Network, participation in a trial of postnatal steroids was considered part of the quality improvement best practices as opposed to simply choosing an as-of-yet unproven approach to use of this potent drug [27]. What role will Cochrane Neonatal play as we move forward in the 21st Century? As the neonatal community moves forward with its' research agenda, Cochrane Neonatal must not only follow but also lead with innovative approaches to synthesizing research findings. Cochrane Neonatal must continue to work closely with guideline developers. The relationship between systematic review production and guideline development is clearly outlined inreports from the Institute of Medicine [28,29]. Both are essential to guideline development; the systematic review group culling the evidence for the benefits and harms of a given intervention and the guideline group addressing the contextual issues of cost, feasibility, implementation and the values and preferences of individuals and societies. Most national and international guidelines groups now routinely use systematic reviews as the evidence basis for their guidelines and recommendations. Examples of the partnership between Cochrane Neonatal and international guideline development can be seen in our support of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the use of vitamin A or the soon to be published recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) on cord management in preterm and term infants [30]. In the future, we need to collaborate early in the guideline development process so that the reviews are fit for purpose and meet the needs of the guideline developers and the end users. Towards this end, all Cochrane Neonatal reviews now contain GRADE assessments of the key clinical findings reported in the systematic review [31]. Addition of these assessments addresses the critical issue of our confidence in the findings. We are most confident in evidence provided by randomized controlled trials but this assessment can be can be downgraded if the studies that reported on the outcome in question had a high risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency of results, or imprecision, or where there is evidence of reporting bias. Information provided by GRADE assessments is seen as critical in the process of moving from the evidence to formal recommendations [32]. We need to explore complex reviews, such as network (NMA) or multiple treatment comparison (MCT) meta-analyses, to address issues not formally addressed in clinical trials [33]. In conditions where there are multiple effective interventions, it is rare for all possible interventions to have been tested against each other [34]. A solution could be provided by network meta-analysis, which allows for comparing all treatments with each other, even if randomized controlled trials are not available for some treatment comparisons [34]. Network meta-analysis uses both direct (head-to-head) randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence as well as indirect evidence from RCTs to compare the relative effectiveness of all included interventions [35]. However, Mills and colleagues note that the methodological quality of MTCs may be difficult for clinicians to interpret because the number of interventions evaluated may be large and the methodological approaches may be complex [35]. Cochrane Neonatal must take a role in both the creation of such analyses and the education of the neonatal community regarding the pitfalls of such an approach. The availability of individual patient data will make more sophisticated analyses more available to the community. Although the current crop of individual patient data meta-analyses (including the reviews of elective high frequency ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide and oxygen targets) have not differed substantially from the findings of the trials level reviews (suggesting that, in fact, sick neonates are more alike that unalike), there still will be a large role for individual patient data meta-analysis, at least to end the unfound conclusions that these therapies are effective in various subgroups (be it issues of sex, disease severity, or clinical setting) [36-39]. Future trials should take a lesson from the NeOProM Collaborative [37,39]. Given the difficulty in generating significant sample size and creating funding in any single environment, trials with similar protocols should be conducted in a variety of healthcare settings with an eye towards both study level and individual patient level meta-analysis at the conclusion of those trials, allowing for broader contribution to the trials data, more rapid accrual of sample size, and more precise results. We need to educate the neonatal community regarding the use and abuse of diagnostic tests. Diagnostic tests are a critical component of healthcare but also contribute greatly to the cost of medical care worldwide. These costs include the cost of the tests themselves and the costs of misdiagnosis and treatment of individuals who will not benefit from those treatments. Clinicians may have a limited understanding of diagnostic test accuracy, the ability of a diagnostic test to distinguish between patients with and without the disease or target condition [41,42]. Efforts such as Choosing Wisely have tried to identify these deficiencies [40]. As Cochrane has increased the general literacy of both the medical and general population regarding the interpretation of the results of interventions on various diseases, so should Cochrane move forward and improve the understanding of diagnostic testing. We need to become more efficient at creating and maintaining our reviews. The time spent to produce systematic reviews is far too great. In average, it takes between 2½ to 6½ years to produce a systematic review, requiring intense time input for highly trained and expensive experts. Innovations in the ways in which we produce systematic reviews can make the review process more efficient by outsourcing some of the tasks or crowdsourcing to machine learning. We need to let the crowd and machine learning innovations help us sort the massive amounts of information needed to conduct systematic reviews. It can also allow for "live" updating of critical reviews where the research landscape is quickly changing [43]. Lastly, Cochrane Neonatal must focus more on users of the reviews and not necessarily authors of the reviews. Current Cochrane programming speaks of Cochrane training with an eye towards developing the skills of individuals who will conduct systematic reviews. While this is clearly needed and laudable, the fact of the matter is that most of the community will be "users" of the reviews. Individuals who need to understand how to use and interpret the findings of systematic reviews. These review users include clinicians, guideline developers, policy makers and families. Incorporation of GRADE guidelines has been a huge step in adding transparency to the level of uncertainty we have in our findings. From a family's perspective, we need to overcome the environment of mistrust or misunderstanding of scientific evidence and how we convey what we know, and our uncertainty about what we know, to parents and families.

Take me to your leader: Reporting structures and equity in academic gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Gynecologic oncology includes increasing percentages of women. This study characterizes representation of faculty by gender and subspecialty in academic department leadership roles relevant to the specialty. METHODS: The American Association of Medical Colleges accredited schools of medicine were identified. Observational data was obtained through institutional websites in 2019. RESULTS: 144 accredited medical schools contained a department of obstetrics and gynecology with a chair; 101 a gynecologic oncology division with a director; 98 a clinical cancer center with a director. Women were overrepresented in academic faculty roles compared to the US workforce (66 vs 57%, p < 0.01) but underrepresented in all leadership roles (p < 0.01). Departments with women chairs were more likely to have >50% women faculty (90.2 vs 9.8%, p < 0.01); and have larger faculties (80.4 vs 19.6% >20 faculty, p = 0.02). The cancer center director gender did not correlate to departmental characteristics. A surgically focused chair was also associated with >50% women faculty (85.7 vs 68.3%, p = 0.03); faculty size >20 (85.7 vs 61.4%, p < 0.01); and a woman gynecologic oncology division director (57.6 vs 29.4%, p < 0.01; 68.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.01) and gynecologic oncology fellowship (50 vs 30.4%, p < 0.01; 59.1 vs 32%, p < 0.01). Gynecologic oncology leadership within cancer centers was below expected when incidence and mortality to leadership ratios were examined (p < 0.01, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Within academic medical schools, women remain under-represented in obstetrics and gynecology departmental and cancer center leadership. Potential benefits to gynecologic oncology divisions of inclusion women and surgically focused leadership were identified.

A Randomized Phase II Trial of Epigenetic Priming with Guadecitabine and Carboplatin in Platinum-resistant, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Platinum resistance in ovarian cancer is associated with epigenetic modifications. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been studied as carboplatin resensitizing agents in ovarian cancer. This randomized phase II trial compared guadecitabine, a second-generation HMA, and carboplatin (G+C) against second-line chemotherapy in women with measurable or detectable platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either G+C (guadecitabine 30 mg/m2 s.c. once-daily for 5 days and carboplatin) or treatment of choice (TC; topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine) in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were RECIST v1.1 and CA-125 response rate, 6-month PFS, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 100 patients treated, 51 received G+C and 49 received TC, of which 27 crossed over to G+C. The study did not meet its primary endpoint as the median PFS was not statistically different between arms (16.3 weeks vs. 9.1 weeks in the G+C and TC groups, respectively; P = 0.07). However, the 6-month PFS rate was significantly higher in the G+C group (37% vs. 11% in TC group; P = 0.003). The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was similar in G+C and TC groups (51% and 49%, respectively), with neutropenia and leukopenia being more frequent in the G+C group. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial did not show superiority for PFS of G+C versus TC, the 6-month PFS increased in G+C treated patients. Further refinement of this strategy should focus on identification of predictive markers for patient selection.

Phase I Study of Sorafenib and Vorinostat in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Preclinical data suggest histone deacetylase inhibitors improve the therapeutic index of sorafenib. A phase I study was initiated to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib combined with vorinostat in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received vorinostat (200 to 400 mg by mouth once daily, 5 of 7 d) and sorafenib at standard or reduced doses (400 mg [cohort A] or 200 mg [cohort B] by mouth twice daily). Patients who received 14 days of vorinostat in cycle 1 were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). RESULTS: Sixteen patients were treated. Thirteen patients were evaluable for response. Three patients experienced DLTs, 2 in cohort A (grade [gr] 3 hypokalemia; gr 3 maculopapular rash) and 1 in cohort B (gr 3 hepatic failure; gr 3 hypophosphatemia; gr 4 thrombocytopenia). Eleven patients required dose reductions or omissions for non-DLTtoxicity. Ten patients (77%) had stable disease (SD). The median treatment duration was 4.7 months for response-evaluable patients. One patient with SD was on treatment for 29.9 months, and another patient, also with SD, was on treatment for 18.7 months. Another patient electively stopped therapy after 15 months and remains without evidence of progression 3 years later. CONCLUSIONS: Although some patients had durable disease control, the addition of vorinostat to sorafenib led to toxicities in most patients, requiring dose modifications that prevented determination of the recommended phase 2 dose. The combination is not recommended for further exploration with this vorinostat schedule in this patient population.

Evidence-Based Practice: Improving the Quality of Perinatal Care.

BACKGROUND: For clinical research findings to improve the quality of care and outcomes for newborn infants and their families, they need to be implemented in policy and adopted in practice. METHODS: We describe the principles of effective dissemination and implementation of research findings and highlight examples of collaborative quality improvement strategies to ensure that guidelines, protocols, policies and practices reflect research-informed evidence. RESULTS: Passive dissemination of research findings is generally ineffective in driving change. Implementation strategies that use multi-faceted approaches acting on different barriers to change are better at driving improvements in the quality of care practices. These initiatives are increasingly embedded within regional, national and international networks of neonatal care centres that collaborate in conducting research, implementing its findings and auditing its uptake. Examples of successful network-based collaborative quality improvement programmes include efforts to increase use of evidence-based strategies to prevent hospital-acquired bloodstream infections, optimise surfactant replacement for preterm infants, reduce the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, improve antibiotic stewardship and promote the use of human milk to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very-low-birth-weight infants. CONCLUSIONS: Effective dissemination and implementation are essential for research evidence to improve quality of care and outcomes for newborn infants and their families. Multifaceted initiatives within network-based collaborative quality improvement programmes facilitate continuous audit and benchmarking cycles to ensure equity of access to evidence-based care practices.

Differences in presentation and survival of Asians compared to Caucasians with ovarian cancer: An NRG Oncology/GOG Ancillary study of 7914 patients.

PURPOSE: To compare patient/tumor characteristics and outcomes of Asians to Caucasian patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ancillary data were pooled and analyzed from ten prospective randomized front-line Gynecologic Oncology Group clinical trials from 1996 to 2011. Demographic, clinicopathologic features, disease-specific and all-cause survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 7914 patients, 7641 were Caucasian and 273 Asian. When compared to Caucasians, Asians were younger at trial enrollment, had a better performance status, earlier-stage cancers (17.2% vs. 8.1% with stage I; p < 0.001), and were more likely to be of clear cell (15.8% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001) and mucinous (3.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001) histology. Asians had an improved 5-year disease-specific survival of 54.1% compared to 46.1% for Caucasians, p = 0.001. In multivariate analysis, the Asian race remained a significant prognostic factor for all-cause survival (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99; p = 0.04). Other factors predictive of improved survival included younger age, better performance status, optimal cytoreduction, earlier stage, non-clear cell histology, and lower grade tumors. CONCLUSION: Asians enrolled into phase III ovarian cancer clinical trials were younger, with better performance status, earlier-stage of disease, and have a greater number of clear cell and mucinous tumors. After adjusting for these prognostic factors, Asians have a better survival compared to Caucasians.

Co-occurring substance use disorder: The impact on treatment adherence in women with locally advanced cervical cancer.

The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of substance use disorder and its association with adherence to treatment and survival in locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated with primary radiation therapy. This is a retrospective case series of locally advanced cervical cancer patients with substance use disorder in a single academic institution treated with radiation therapy between 2005 and 2016. Substance use disorder was identified through chart review. Those with substance use disorder were compared to those without in regards to demographics, Charlson comorbidity index, treatment details and outcomes. Of the 129 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, 16 (12.4%) were identified as having substance use disorder. Patients with substance use disorder were younger (42.1 years vs 51.5 years, p = .013) and more likely to be smokers (81.3% vs 42.5%, p = .004). The majority of patients with substance use disorder received concurrent chemotherapy (93.8%) and brachytherapy in addition to external beam radiation therapy (81.3%). There was no significant difference in days to completion of radiation therapy between patients with and without substance use disorder. Radiation dose received, toxicities and survival were similar between groups. Among cervical cancer patients receiving treatment with radiation therapy, substance use disorder was not associated with poorer adherence, longer radiation treatment times or a difference in total dose of radiation received. Our experience demonstrates that patients with substance use disorder are able to adhere to complex, multimodal treatment plans resulting in similar cancer specific outcomes compared to patients without substance use disorder.

Treating extravasation injuries in infants and young children: a scoping review and survey of UK NHS practice.

BACKGROUND: Extravasation injuries are caused by unintended leakages of fluids or medicines from intravenous lines but there is no consensus on the best treatment approaches, particularly in infants and young children. METHODS: This paper presents a more succinct account of a study of treatments for extravasation injuries in infants and children which has also been reported in full as an NIHR HTA report. A systematic scoping review and survey of UK NHS practice were undertaken. Twelve databases - including MEDLINE and EMBASE - were searched for relevant studies in February 2017. Studies of children with extravasation injuries receiving any treatment for extravasation injury were eligible, providing they reported one of the following outcomes: wound healing time, infection, pain, scarring, functional impairment, and requirement for surgery. Studies were screened in duplicate. Data were extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies were summarised narratively. An online questionnaire was distributed to NHS staff at neonatal units, paediatric intensive care units and principal oncology/haematology units. RESULTS: The evidence identified in the scoping review was mostly comprised of small, retrospective, uncontrolled group studies or case reports. The studies covered a wide range of interventions including conservative management approaches, saline flush-out techniques (with or without prior hyaluronidase), hyaluronidase without flush-out, artificial skin treatments, debridement and plastic surgery. Few studies graded injury severity and the results sections and outcomes reported in most studies were limited. There was heterogeneity across study populations in many factors. The survey yielded 63 responses from hospital units across the UK. Results indicated that although most units had written documentation for treating extravasation injuries, only one-third of documents included a system for grading injury severity. The most frequently used interventions were elevation of the affected area and analgesics. Saline wash-out treatments, either with or without hyaluronidase, were regularly used in about half of all neonatal units. Most responders thought a randomised controlled trial might be a viable future research design. CONCLUSIONS: There is some uncertainty about which are most the promising treatments for extravasation injuries in infants and young children. Saline flush-out techniques and conservative management approaches are commonly used and may be suitable for evaluation in trials. Although conventional randomised trials may be difficult to perform a randomised registry trial may be an appropriate alternative design.

Randomized phase II study of the PDGFRα antibody olaratumab plus liposomal doxorubicin versus liposomal doxorubicin alone in patients with platinum-refractory or platinum-resistant advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Olaratumab is a platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα)-targeting monoclonal antibody blocking PDGFRα signaling. PDGFRα expression is associated with a more aggressive phenotype and poor ovarian cancer outcomes. This randomized, open label phase II study evaluated olaratumab plus liposomal doxorubicin compared with liposomal doxorubicin alone in advanced ovarian cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with platinum-refractory or platinum-resistant advanced ovarian cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m2, intravenous infusion) administered every 4 weeks with or without olaratumab (20 mg/kg, IV infusion) every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified based on prior response to platinum therapy (refractory vs resistant). The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were treated (62 olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin; 61 liposomal doxorubicin). Median PFS was 4.2 months for olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and 4.0 months for liposomal doxorubicin (stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 1.043; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.698-1.558; p = 0.837). Median OS was 16.6 months and 16.2 months in the olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and liposomal doxorubicin arms, respectively (HR = 1.098; 95% CI 0.71-1.71). In the platinum-refractory subgroup, median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI 1.6-9.2) and 3.7 months (95% CI 1.9-9.2) in the olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin (n = 15) and liposomal doxorubicin arms (n = 16), respectively (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.38-1.91). Overall, 59.7% (olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin) and 65.6% (liposomal doxorubicin) of patients reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events regardless of causality. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grades) regardless of causality were fatigue related (61%), nausea (57%), and constipation (52%) with olaratumab+liposomal doxorubicin and nausea (64%), fatigue related (62%), and mucositis (46%) with liposomal doxorubicin. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of olaratumab to liposomal doxorubicin did not result in significant prolongation of PFS or OS in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00913835 ; registered June 2, 2009.

Enteral lactoferrin to prevent infection for very preterm infants: the ELFIN RCT.

BACKGROUND: Infections acquired in hospital are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. Several small trials have suggested that supplementing the enteral diet of very preterm infants with lactoferrin, an antimicrobial protein processed from cow's milk, prevents infections and associated complications. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not enteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin (The Tatua Cooperative Dairy Company Ltd, Morrinsville, New Zealand) reduces the risk of late-onset infection (acquired > 72 hours after birth) and other morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Randomisation was via a web-based portal and used an algorithm that minimised for recruitment site, weeks of gestation, sex and single versus multiple births. SETTING: UK neonatal units between May 2014 and September 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation and aged < 72 hours at trial enrolment. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible infants were allocated individually (1 : 1 ratio) to receive enteral bovine lactoferrin (150 mg/kg/day; maximum 300 mg/day) or sucrose (British Sugar, Peterborough, UK) placebo (same dose) once daily from trial entry until a postmenstrual age of 34 weeks. Parents, caregivers and outcome assessors were unaware of group assignment. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome - microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset infection. Secondary outcomes - microbiologically confirmed infection; all-cause mortality; severe necrotising enterocolitis (NEC); retinopathy of prematurity (ROP); bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD); a composite of infection, NEC, ROP, BPD and mortality; days of receipt of antimicrobials until 34 weeks' postmenstrual age; length of stay in hospital; and length of stay in intensive care, high-dependency and special-care settings. RESULTS: Of 2203 enrolled infants, primary outcome data were available for 2182 infants (99%). In the intervention group, 316 out of 1093 (28.9%) infants acquired a late-onset infection versus 334 out of 1089 (30.7%) infants in the control group [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04]. There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes: microbiologically confirmed infection (RR 1.05, 99% CI 0.87 to 1.26), mortality (RR 1.05, 99% CI 0.66 to 1.68), NEC (RR 1.13, 99% CI 0.68 to 1.89), ROP (RR 0.89, 99% CI 0.62 to 1.28), BPD (RR 1.01, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.13), or a composite of infection, NEC, ROP, BPD and mortality (RR 1.01, 99% CI 0.94 to 1.08). There were no differences in the number of days of receipt of antimicrobials, length of stay in hospital, or length of stay in intensive care, high-dependency or special-care settings. There were 16 reports of serious adverse events for infants in the lactoferrin group and 10 for infants in the sucrose group. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin does not reduce the incidence of infection, mortality or other morbidity in very preterm infants. FUTURE WORK: Increase the precision of the estimates of effect on rarer secondary outcomes by combining the data in a meta-analysis with data from other trials. A mechanistic study is being conducted in a subgroup of trial participants to explore whether or not lactoferrin supplementation affects the intestinal microbiome and metabolite profile of very preterm infants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88261002. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also sponsored by the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. The funder provided advice and support and monitored study progress but did not have a role in study design or data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Treatment of extravasation injuries in infants and young children: a scoping review and survey.

BACKGROUND: Extravasation injuries are caused by unintended leakages of fluids or medicines from intravenous lines, but there is no consensus on the best treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: To identify which treatments may be best for treating extravasation injuries in infants and young children. DESIGN: Scoping review and survey of practice. POPULATION: Children aged < 18 years with extravasation injuries and NHS staff who treat children with extravasation injuries. INTERVENTIONS: Any treatment for extravasation injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Wound healing time, infection, pain, scarring, functional impairment, requirement for surgery. DATA SOURCES: Twelve database searches were carried out in February 2017 without date restrictions, including MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE). METHODS: Scoping review - studies were screened in duplicate. Data were extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Studies were grouped by design, and then by intervention, with details summarised narratively and in tables. The survey questionnaire was distributed to NHS staff at neonatal units, paediatric intensive care units and principal oncology/haematology units. Summary results were presented narratively and in tables and figures. RESULTS: The evidence identified in the scoping review mostly comprised small, retrospective, uncontrolled group studies or case reports. The studies covered a wide range of interventions including conservative management approaches, saline flush-out techniques (with or without prior hyaluronidase), hyaluronidase (without flush-out), artificial skin treatments, debridement and plastic surgery. Few studies graded injury severity and the results sections and outcomes reported in most studies were limited. There was heterogeneity across study populations in age, types of infusate, injury severity, location of injury and the time gaps between injury identification and subsequent treatment. Some of the better evidence related to studies of flush-out techniques. The NHS survey yielded 63 responses from hospital units across the UK. Results indicated that, although most units had a written protocol or guideline for treating extravasation injuries, only one-third of documents included a staging system for grading injury severity. In neonatal units, parenteral nutrition caused most extravasation injuries. In principal oncology/haematology units, most injuries were due to vesicant chemotherapies. The most frequently used interventions were elevation of the affected area and analgesics. Warm or cold compresses were rarely used. Saline flush-out treatments, either with or without hyaluronidase, were regularly used in about half of all neonatal units. Most responders thought a randomised controlled trial might be a viable future research design, though opinions varied greatly by setting. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of good-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty about which treatments are most promising, particularly with respect to treating earlier-stage injuries. Saline flush-out techniques and conservative management approaches are commonly used and may be suitable for evaluation in trials. FUTURE WORK: Conventional randomised trials may be difficult to perform, although a randomised registry trial may be an appropriate alternative. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Treatment-Related Radiation Toxicity Among Cervical Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to identify incidence of and factors associated with severe late toxicity in women treated with radiation for cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with cervical cancer treated with radiation as primary or adjuvant therapy from 2005 to 2017 in a single academic institution were included. Records were reviewed for demographic information, Charlson Comorbidity Index, treatment details, toxicities, and outcomes. Patients with and those without severe late gastrointestinal toxicity (SLGIT), severe late genitourinary toxicity (SLGUT), or any SLGIT or SLGUT, defined as any toxicity (AT), were compared. Overall survival and progression-free survival were also compared. RESULTS: Of 179 patients identified, 21.2% had AT, 17.3% had SLGIT, and 10% had SLGUT. Estimated AT rate at 3 years was 24.2%. The mean duration of follow-up was 37 months (range, 3-146 months). Most patients (84.1%) received 3-dimensional conformal therapy, and 15.9% received intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Factors associated with AT were lower body mass index (24.9 vs 28.3, P = 0.043), white race (63.2% vs 44%, P = 0.035), and active tobacco smoking during treatment (59.5% vs 40.2%, P = 0.036). Any toxicity was not associated with 3-dimensional versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning, low-dose versus high-dose-rate brachytherapy or time to complete radiation treatment. Higher total cumulative radiation dose to clinical target volume was associated with SLGIT. Progression-free survival and overall survival were similar among patients with AT compared to those without toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cervical cancer, radiation toxicity is correlated with lower body mass index, white race, and smoking. Despite technologic advances in radiotherapy planning and delivery, toxicity remains high and interventions to reduce the burden of treatment are needed.

Radiation Treatment in Women with Ovarian Cancer: Past, Present, and Future.

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal of the gynecologic cancers, with 5-year survival rates less than 50%. Most women present with advanced stage disease as the pattern of spread is typically with dissemination of malignancy throughout the peritoneal cavity prior to development of any symptoms. Prior to the advent of platinum-based chemotherapy, radiotherapy was used as adjuvant therapy to sterilize micrometastatic disease. The evolution of radiotherapy is detailed in this review, which establishes radiotherapy as an effective therapy for women with micrometastatic disease in the peritoneal cavity after surgery, ovarian clear cell carcinoma, focal metastatic disease, and for palliation of advanced disease. However, with older techniques, the toxicity of whole abdominal radiotherapy and the advancement of systemic therapies have limited the use of radiotherapy in this disease. With newer radiotherapy techniques, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and low-dose hyperfractionation in combination with targeted agents, radiotherapy could be reconsidered as part of the standard management for this deadly disease.

High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Breast milk alone, given at standard recommended volumes (150 to 180 mL/kg/d), is not adequate to meet the protein, energy, and other nutrient requirements of growing preterm or low birth weight infants. One strategy that may be used to address these potential nutrient deficits is to give infants enteral feeds in excess of 200 mL/kg/d ('high-volume' feeds). This approach may increase nutrient uptake and growth rates, but concerns include that high-volume enteral feeds may cause feed intolerance, gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, or complications related to fluid overload, including patent ductus arteriosus and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect on growth and safety of feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with high (> 200 mL/kg/d) versus standard (≤ 200 mL/kg/d) volume of enteral feeds. Infants in intervention and control groups should have received the same type of milk (breast milk, formula, or both), the same fortification or micronutrient supplements, and the same enteral feeding regimen (bolus, continuous) and rate of feed volume advancement.To conduct subgroup analyses based on type of milk (breast milk vs formula), gestational age or birth weight category of included infants (very preterm or VLBW vs preterm or LBW), presence of intrauterine growth restriction (using birth weight relative to the reference population as a surrogate), and income level of the country in which the trial was conducted (low or middle income vs high income) (see 'Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity'). SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Neonatal standard search strategy, which included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1946 to November 2016); Embase (1974 to November 2016); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to November 2016), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared high-volume versus standard-volume enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data, and the mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. . We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level via the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found one eligible trial that included 64 infants. This trial was not blinded. Analysis showed a higher rate of weight gain in the high-volume feeds group: mean difference 6.20 g/kg/d (95% confidence interval 2.71 to 9.69). There was no increase in the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis with high-volume feeds, but 95% confidence intervals around these estimates were wide. We assessed the quality of evidence for these outcomes as 'low' or 'very low' because of imprecision of the estimates of effect and concern about risk of bias due to lack of blinding in the included trial. Trial authors provided no data on other outcomes, including gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, patent ductus arteriosus, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or long-term growth and neurodevelopment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only very limited data from one small unblinded trial on the effects of high-volume feeds on important outcomes for preterm or low birth weight infants. The quality of evidence is low to very low. Hence, available evidence is insufficient to support or refute high-volume enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. A large, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.