Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

BACKGROUND: Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: A systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Mammography screening is generally accepted in women aged 50-69, but the balance between benefits and harms remains controversial in other age groups. This study systematically reviews these effects to inform the European Breast Cancer Guidelines. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of observational studies in the absence of RCTs comparing invitation to mammography screening to no invitation in women at average breast cancer (BC) risk. We extracted data for mortality, BC stage, mastectomy rate, chemotherapy provision, overdiagnosis and false-positive-related adverse effects. We performed a pooled analysis of relative risks, applying an inverse-variance random-effects model for three age groups (<50, 50-69 and 70-74). GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs including 616,641 women aged 38-75. Mammography reduced BC mortality in women aged 50-69 (relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95%CI (confidence interval) 0.66-0.90, high certainty) and 70-74 (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.54-1.09, high certainty), with smaller reductions in under 50s (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.76-1.02, moderate certainty). Mammography reduced stage IIA+ in women 50-69 (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.64-1.00, very low certainty) but resulted in an overdiagnosis probability of 23% (95%CI 18-27%) and 17% (95%CI 15-20%) in under 50s and 50-69, respectively (moderate certainty). Mammography was associated with 2.9% increased risk of invasive procedures with benign outcomes (low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: For women 50-69, high certainty evidence that mammography screening reduces BC mortality risk would support policymakers formulating strong recommendations. In other age groups, where the net balance of effects is less clear, conditional recommendations will be more likely, together with shared decision-making.

Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Approaches for Schistosomiasis and Strongyloidiasis in Newly-Arrived Migrants from Endemic Countries in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review.

We aimed to evaluate the evidence on screening and treatment for two parasitic infections-schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis-among migrants from endemic countries arriving in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 1 January 1993 and 30 May 2016 presenting evidence on diagnostic and treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We conducted additional systematic search for individual studies published between 2010 and 2017. We assessed the methodological quality of reviews and studies using the AMSTAR, Newcastle⁻Ottawa Scale and QUADAS-II tools. Study synthesis and assessment of the certainty of the evidence was performed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We included 28 systematic reviews and individual studies in this review. The GRADE certainty of evidence was low for the effectiveness of screening techniques and moderate to high for treatment efficacy. Antibody-detecting serological tests are the most effective screening tests for detection of both schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in low-endemicity settings, because they have higher sensitivity than conventional parasitological methods. Short courses of praziquantel and ivermectin were safe and highly effective and cost-effective in treating schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis, respectively. Economic modelling suggests presumptive single-dose treatment of strongyloidiasis with ivermectin for all migrants is likely cost-effective, but feasibility of this strategy has yet to be demonstrated in clinical studies. The evidence supports screening and treatment for schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in migrants from endemic countries, to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Predictores de Mortalidad en Infecciones de Pacientes Neutropénicos Febriles Críticos / Predictors of Mortality in Infections of Critical Febrile Neutropenic Patients

Introducción: La mortalidad relacionada a la neutropenia febril puede ser muy alta en ciertas poblaciones de alto riesgo. El objetivo del presente estudio fue identificar factores predictores tempranos de mortalidad en una cohorte de pacientes oncológicos con neutropenia febril admitidos en una unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo en pacientes con neutropenia febril mayores de 18 años ingresados en la UCI del Hospital Oncológico Solón Espinosa Ayala de Quito. Se recogieron variables sociodemográficas, clínicas, de laboratorio y microbiológicas de los registros clínicos al ingreso. Con dichas variables se construyeron modelos predictivos de mortalidad mediante análisis de regresión logística para identificar predictores de muerte. Resultados: Se registraron 107 pacientes con episodios de neutropenia febril, el 53.3 % de los casos presentaron neutropenia severa y en un 29.9 % de los casos la neutropenia duró más de 10 días. La prevalencia de bacteriemia fue del 34.6 %. El 34.6 % de los pacientes murieron (n=37), de estos el 22.4 % falleció en la UCI. Edad superior de 40 años, valores de procalcitonina superiores a 4 ng/ml, puntuaciones altas en APACHE II y la necesidad de apoyo ventilatorio se asociaron con mayor riesgo de muerte en el modelo multivariado; el valor predictivo en la validación interna tuvo una precisión de 81.3 %; sensibilidad de 63.6 %; especificidad de 90.5 %; valor predictivo positivo de 77.8 %; valor predictivo negativo de 82.6 %; área bajo la curva de 0.87. Conclusión: Factores como la edad mayor de 40 años, procalcitonina > 4 ug/ml al ingreso, valores de APACHE II y necesidad de ventilación mecánica están asociados con mayor riesgo de muerte.

Introduction: The mortality related to febrile neutropenia may be very high in certain populations. The aim of the present study was to identify early predictors of mortality in a cohort of oncologic patients with febrile neutropenia admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Retrospective observational study in patients with febrile neutropenia older than 18 years admitted to the intensive care unit of the "Solon Espinosa Ayala" Oncology Hospital in Quito. Sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory and microbiological variables were collected from clinical records at admission. With these variables, predictive mortality models were constructed usingclogistic regression analysis to identify predictors of death. Results: There were 107 episodes of febrile neutropenia, 53.3 % had severe neutropenia, and in 29.9 % of the cases neutropenia lasted more than 10 days. The prevalence of bacteremia was 34.6 %. 34.6 % of the patients died (n = 37), of which 22.4 % died in the ICU. A higher age of 40 years, procalcitonin values higher than 4 ng / ml, high APACHE II scores and the need for ventilatory support were associated with an increased risk of death in the multivariate model; The predictive value in the internal validation had an accuracy of 81.3 %; Sensitivity of 63.6 %; Specificity of 90.5 %; Positive predictive value of 77.8 %; Negative predictive value of 82.6 %; Area under the curve of 0.87. Conclusion: Factors such as age greater than 40 years, procalcitonin at admission > 4 ug/ml, APACHE II and requirement of mechanical ventilation support are associated with a higher risk of death.

Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours. Currently, different pharmacological and surgical options are used to treat localised and metastatic GISTs, although this research field is broad and the body of evidence is scattered and expanding. Our objectives are to identify, describe and organise the current available evidence for GIST through an evidence mapping approach. METHODS: We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos in order to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses published between 1990 and March 2016. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR. We organised the results according to identified PICO questions and presented the evidence map in tables and a bubble plot. RESULTS: A total of 17 SRs met eligibility criteria. These reviews included 66 individual studies, of which three quarters were either observational or uncontrolled clinical trials. Overall, the quality of the included SRs was moderate or high. In total, we extracted 14 PICO questions from them and the corresponding results mostly favoured the intervention arm. CONCLUSIONS: The most common type of study used to evaluate therapeutic interventions in GIST sarcomas has been non-experimental studies. However, the majority of the interventions are reported as beneficial or probably beneficial by the respective authors of SRs. The evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence about therapeutic interventions.