Frequency of anticancer drug use at the end of life: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Anticancer drug use at the end of life places potential extra burdens on patients and the healthcare system. Previous articles show variability in methods and outcomes; thus, their results are not directly comparable. This scoping review describes the methods and extent of anticancer drug use at end of life. METHODS: Systematic searches in Medline and Embase were conducted to identify articles reporting anticancer drug use at the end of life. RESULTS: We selected 341 eligible publications, identifying key study features including timing of research, disease status, treatment schedule, treatment type, and treatment characteristics. Among the subset of 69 articles of all cancer types published within the last 5 years, we examined the frequency of anticancer drug use across various end of life periods. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive description of publications on anticancer drug use at end of life underscores the importance of methodological factors when designing studies and comparing outcomes.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map.

Introduction: Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes. Methods: In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer. Results: We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care. Discussion: Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.

Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE). MAIN RESULTS: A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Risk-of-bias assessment of the randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews on surgical treatments for breast cancer-related lymphedema: A mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment is the principal cause of lymphedema in the upper extremities. Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) treatments were previously based on conservative therapy; surgical treatments are alternative options that could be highly beneficial, especially for patients who are not responsive to conservative therapy. The main aim of this study was to describe and critically assess the risk of bias of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) on surgical treatment for BCRL. METHODS: We conducted an evidence mapping review according to the methodology proposed by Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). An update was done for our previous systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane), and Epistemonikos from the year 2000 onward. We assessed the risk of bias for the RCTs and SRs using the RoB-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. RESULTS: Two surgical RCTs and eight SRs were found among the 47 surgical studies that met the eligibility criteria. The overall risk-of-bias assessments of these studies were rated as some concerns (six outcomes) and high risk (three outcomes) for the measured outcomes among the RCTs and as a high risk of bias (five studies) and low risk (three studies) for the included SRs. CONCLUSIONS: The overall evidence in the literature on surgical treatment for BCRL is low, as there are few published RCTs and SRs, and the risk-of-bias assessment for the majority was rated as high risk of bias or with some concerns. High-quality studies are needed to improve evidence-based decision-making by surgeons and patients.

Characteristics and impact of interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with guideline recommendations for breast cancer: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients. Suboptimal compliance with breast cancer guideline recommendations remains frequent, and has been associated with a decreased survival. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize and determine the impact of available interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with CPGs recommendations in breast cancer healthcare. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and primary studies in PubMed and Embase (from inception to May 2021). We included experimental and observational studies reporting on the use of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and critical appraisal was conducted by one reviewer, and cross-checked by a second reviewer. Using the same approach, we synthesized the characteristics and the effects of the interventions by type of intervention (according to the EPOC taxonomy), and applied the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 35 primary studies reporting on 24 different interventions. Most frequently described interventions consisted in computerized decision support systems (12 studies); educational interventions (seven), audit and feedback (two), and multifaceted interventions (nine). There is low quality evidence that educational interventions targeted to healthcare professionals may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment. There is moderate quality evidence that reminder systems for healthcare professionals improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. There is low quality evidence that multifaceted interventions may improve compliance with recommendations concerning breast cancer screening. The effectiveness of the remaining types of interventions identified have not been evaluated with appropriate study designs for such purpose. There is very limited data on the costs of implementing these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of interventions to support compliance with breast cancer CPGs recommendations are available, and most of them show positive effects. More robust trials are needed to strengthen the available evidence base concerning their efficacy. Gathering data on the costs of implementing the proposed interventions is needed to inform decisions about their widespread implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42018092884 (PROSPERO).

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR). Twelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias. No study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I2 = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm2, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I2 = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I2 = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I2 = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone. The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. CONCLUSION: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.

Systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a scoping review and evidence map.

PURPOSE: To identify, describe, and organise currently available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) (chemotherapy, targeted/biological therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and evidence mapping, adhering to PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. We included systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies evaluating SOTs compared to BSC or no treatment in patients with advanced PC. Two independent reviewers performed the screening process and data extraction. We developed evidence maps as an interactive visualization display, including the assessed interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 50,601 records obtained from our search, we included 43 studies: 2 SRs, 16 RCTs, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 20 observational studies, and 1 protocol for a quasi-experimental study. Forty-two studies reported survival-related outcomes and most favoured SOTs, while five reported toxicity and most favoured BSC. Other patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, were scarcely reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the current evidence gaps in studies assessing treatments for patients with advanced PC, mainly the lack of reports of non-survival-related outcomes, pointing out research areas that need further attention to make better recommendations for these patients.

Dual neoadjuvant blockade plus chemotherapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of women with non-metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the effect of dual anti-HER2 blockade compared to monotherapy on clinically important outcomes. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review updated until July 2022. The outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), clinical response, event-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: We identified eleven randomized clinical trials (2836 patients). When comparing paclitaxel plus dual treatment versus paclitaxel plus trastuzumab or lapatinib, dual treatment was associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.02-4.10). Addition of a taxane to an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil, plus lapatinib or trastuzumab, showed that the dual treatment was better than lapatinib alone (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.41-4.34), or trastuzumab alone (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.13-3.16). Dual treatment may result in an increase in survival outcomes and tumour clinical response, although such benefits are not consistent for all the combinations studied. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dual blockade with combinations of trastuzumab and pertuzumab can be recommended for the neoadjuvant treatment of women with HER2-positive breast cancer. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018110273.

The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis and node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis and node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection. METHODS: The more relevant databases were searched. Main outcomes were false-negative rate (FNR), sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. We conducted meta-analyses when appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. The pooled FNR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.17), the pooled SLNIR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), NPV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87), and summary accuracy was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). SLNB performed better when more than one node was removed and double mapping was used. CONCLUSIONS: SLNB can be performed in women with a node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy. It has a better performance when used with previous marking of the affected node and with double tracer.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Art Therapy in Advanced Cancer. A Mapping Review of the Evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The benefits of arts in improving well-being in end-of-life patients have been stated by the WHO. To inspire clinical practice and future research, we performed a mapping review of the current evidence on the effectiveness of art therapy interventions in stage III and IV cancer patients and their relatives. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified 14 studies. Benefits reported by the authors were grouped as improved emotional and spiritual condition, symptom relief, perception of well-being, satisfaction, and helpfulness. As a body of evidence, notable limitations were observed: Only 1 study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and there was heterogeneity in the interventions and outcome measures. This mapping review highlights the evidence available on the effectiveness of art therapy in advanced cancer, which remains limited and presents specific challenges. It also provides a visual representation of the reported benefits, encouraging further and more rigorous investigation.

Patient experience, satisfaction and shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening: protocol of the mixed-methods study CyDESA.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes can reduce incidence and mortality from this condition if adherence to them is high. As patient experience and satisfaction are key factors in determining adherence to screening programmes, they need to be measured. Furthermore, to promote highly patient-centred healthcare, the perception of patients regarding shared decision-making during CRC screening needs to be known. This study aims to assess the experience, satisfaction and participation in decision-making of participants in a CRC screening programme and of patients diagnosed with CRC through this programme in relation to the diagnostic and therapeutic processes of cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CyDESA study is a mixed-methods study with a four phase sequential design. In phase 1, we will conduct a systematic review of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for patient experience or satisfaction with CRC screening. In case no located PREM can be applied, in phase 2, we will develop a new PREM. We will use the Delphi methodology to reach consensus among experts and patients and will conduct a pilot test of the developed PREM. Phase 3 is a multicentric cross-sectional study based on self-reported questionnaires that will be conducted at three Spanish hospitals (n=843). The objective is to find out about the experience, satisfaction and participation in decision-making of participants in the CRC screening programme who have had a positive screening test result according to their final screening diagnosis: false positives, colorectal polyps or CRC. Phase 4 is a qualitative phenomenological study based on individual interviews. It will explore the experiences of participants in the CRC screening programme and of those diagnosed with CRC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval by the Ethics Committees of Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Hospital de Sant Pau and Parc de Salut Mar. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04610086.

The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: an overview.

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13-14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.

European clinical practice guidelines on the use of chemotherapy for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers: a critical review using the AGREE II and the AGREE-REX instruments.

PURPOSE: To assess the methodological quality of all relevant and recent European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers, and to synthesise their recommendations on the use of chemotherapy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, guidelines repositories, and other sources from 2010 onwards. We appraised quality using AGREE-II and AGREE-REX. RESULTS: 11 CPGs were included (five high, five low, and one moderate quality). Most guidelines showed deficiencies in the domain "applicability", with only three scoring above 60%. Nine did not report having sought the views and preferences of the target population. The lowest scores for AGREE-REX were item Values and Preferences of Target Users (1.6; SD 1.3), and item Values and Preferences of Policy/Decision-Makers (1.8; SD 1.7). The domain Clinical Applicability got the highest score and the domain Implementability got the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: An urgent area of research is how to develop credible and implementable recommendations on the clinical use of CT for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021236753).

Evidence Mapping of the Treatments for Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema.

Women treated for breast cancer are facing a lifetime risk of developing lymphedema, which occurs in up to 40% of this population. There is a lack of evidence and limited knowledge regarding the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). The aim of this study was to identify, describe, and organize the currently available evidence in the treatment of BCRL. METHODS: We conducted an evidence mapping review study according to the methodology proposed by Global Evidence Mapping. We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Central (Cochrane), and Epistemonikos, from 2000-2020. We included studies about all treatment types for BCRL, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Results were summarized in narrative and tabular forms. RESULTS: A total of 240 studies were included in this mapping review, distributed as follows: 147 experimental studies [102 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 45 quasi-experimental clinical trials], 48 observational studies (34 prospective and 14 retrospective studies), and 45 systematic reviews (17 of them with metanalysis). Most of the RCTs were on nonsurgical interventions. Only two RCTs addressed surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In the last 20 years, there were an average of 12 publications per year on the treatment of BCRL. Recently this lack of attention has been partially corrected, as the majority were published in the past 5 years. However, most of them were on nonsurgical interventions. Well-designed RCTs on surgery are needed to measure the effectiveness of the applied interventions.

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.

Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer at high risk of dying in the short or medium-term: overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) have a high risk of dying in the short or medium-term. This overview aimed to assess the evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOT) versus supportive care for advanced PC. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by another one. We evaluated the overlap of primary studies, performed a de novo meta-analysis, and assessed the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), functional status (FS), and toxicity. RESULTS: We identified three SRs that assessed SOT versus supportive care in patients with advanced PC. All SRs had critically low methodological quality. At 12 months, OS improved with chemotherapy, radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, but the certainty of the evidence supporting these findings is very low. The evidence on chemotherapy is very uncertain about its effects on QoL; it suggests a slight increase in toxicity and little to no difference in FS. The evidence on immunotherapy is very uncertain about its effects in toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The identified evidence is very uncertain about the benefits of oncological treatments on OS and QoL in patients with advanced PC with a high risk of dying in the short or medium-term, so its use should be proposed only to selected patients. Further studies that include a thorough assessment of patient-centred outcomes are needed.