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 (AU)

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis. RCT identification remains challenging because of limitations in their indexation in major databases and potential language bias. Scientific production in Latin American nursing is steadily increasing, but little is known about its design or main features. We aimed to identify the extent of evidence from RCTs in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams and evaluate their main characteristics, including potential risk of bias. DESIGN: Scoping review with risk of bias assessment. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review including a comprehensive electronic search in five relevant databases. We completed a descriptive data analysis and a risk of bias assessment of eligible studies using Cochrane's guidance. RESULTS: We identified 1784 references of which 47 were RCTs published in 40 journals. Twenty (42.6%) RCTs were published in journals in English. Chronic diseases were the most common health conditions studied (29.7%). Fifteen (31.9%) RCTs had a high risk of bias. Thirty (75%) journals were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) catalog and 5 (16.7%) were journals classified under nursing category. Twenty-one (52.5%) journals explicitly required CONSORT checklist recommendations for RCTs reporting. CONCLUSION: Publication of RCTs in nursing by Latin American authors has increased. Most journals where RCTs are published are in English and not specific to nursing. Searches in journals of other disciplines may be necessary to facilitate identification of RCTs in nursing. CONSORT statements need to be actively promoted to facilitate rigorous methodology and reporting of RCTs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study highlights the need for an increased research focus on RCTs in nursing in Latin America, and the importance of enhancing the reporting quality of these studies to support evidence-based nursing practice.

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.

Treatment with anticancer drugs for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and high burden of cancer-related symptoms. It is necessary to assess the trade-off of clinical benefits and possible harms of treatments with anticancer drugs (TAD). This systematic review aims to compare the effectiveness of TAD versus supportive care or no treatment, considering all patient-important outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two reviewers performed selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 14 randomised controlled trials. Chemotherapy may result in a slight increase in overall survival (MD: 2.97 months (95%CI 1.23, 4.70)) and fewer hospital days (MD: -6.7 (-8.3, -5.1)), however, the evidence is very uncertain about its effect on symptoms, quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. Targeted/biological therapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival and a slight increment in progression-free survival (HR: 0.83 (95%CI 0.63, 1.10)), but probably results in more adverse events (RR: 5.54 (95%CI 1.24, 23.97)). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of immunotherapy in overall survival and functional status. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about whether the benefits of using treatment with anticancer drugs outweigh their risks for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. This uncertainty is further highlighted when considering immunotherapy or a second line of chemotherapy and thus, best supportive care would be an appropriate alternative. Future studies should assess their impact on all patient-important outcomes to inform patients in setting their goals of care.

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.

Systematic Mapping Review of Orthognathic Surgery (Protocol).

Study Design: This document details the planning phase of a systematic mapping review. Objective: The objective of this mapping review is to identify, describe, and organize evidence currently available from systematic reviews and primary studies regarding different co-interventions and surgical modalities used in orthognathic surgery (OS) and their outcomes. Methods: Systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies that evaluate perioperative OS co-interventions and surgical modalities will be identified in an exhaustive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Lilacs, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Grey literature will also be screened. Results: Expected results include identification of all PICO questions available in the evidence regarding OS and generation of evidence bubble maps, involving a matrix of all identified co-interventions, surgical modalities, and outcomes presented in the studies. This will achieve identification of research gaps and prioritization of new research questions. Conclusions: The significance of this review will result in a systematic identification and characterization of the available evidence, leading to a reduction in research waste and a guidance of future efforts in developing studies for unsolved questions.

Systematic mapping review of interventions to prevent blood loss, infection and relapse in orthognathic surgery

Background: This systematic mapping review aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available evidence in systematic reviews (SR) and primary studies regarding orthognathic surgery (OS) co-interventions and surgical modalities, focusing on the outcomes blood loss, infection and relapse. Material and methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed to identify all SRs, randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluate surgical modalities and perioperative co-interventions in OS that evaluate the outcomes blood loss, infection and relapse, regardless of language or publication date. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Lilacs, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. In addition, grey literature was screened. Results: 27 SRs and 150 primary studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 91 from SRs, and 59 from our search strategy. Overall, the quality of the SRs was graded as "Critically low," and only two SRs were rated as "High" quality. 11 PICO questions were extracted from SRs and 31 from primary studies, which focused on osteosynthesis methods, surgical cutting devices, use of antibiotics, and induced hypotension. In addition, evidence bubble maps for each outcome were created to analyze in a visual manner the existing evidence. Conclusions: Future primary and secondary high-quality research should be addressed focused on the eight knowledge gaps identified in this mapping review. We concluded that the evidence mapping approach is a practical methodology for organizing the current evidence and identifying knowledge gaps in OS, helping to reduce research waste and canalize future efforts in developing studies for unsolved questions. (AU)

Policymakers' perceived barriers and facilitators in the use of research evidence in oral health policies and guidelines: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-informed oral health policies are crucial to improving patient and population outcomes, but policymakers and organisational leaders infrequently systematically incorporate research evidence. Although there is indirect evidence regarding challenges in other healthcare sectors, the use of evidence-informed oral health policies remains unstudied in oral health. This study aims to assess policymakers' perceived needs, barriers and facilitators in using research evidence to inform policies in oral health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative study situated within a phenomenological paradigm. We will conduct semistructured interviews with policymakers (5-10) affiliated with key organisations conducting guidance, policy statements, guidelines or any knowledge transfer deliverables in oral health. Organisations will be sampled purposively and with no geographical restrictions. All interviews will be recorded, and an audio transcript will be generated. Subsequently, a researcher will review and validate the transcripts. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis supported by ATLAS.ti software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not sought because the study protocol met the criteria for exemption from such review according to the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau and the Spanish legislation (Law 14/2007 of 3 July, on biomedical research). Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in this study. The findings of this study will be shared with participating organisations for feedback, disseminated in conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal adopting open science practices. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/W4KG7).

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.

Finding and evaluating randomised controlled trials in nursing conducted by Spanish research teams: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the main characteristics and the potential risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in nursing conducted by Spanish research teams. METHODS: Scoping review of an electronic search in three major databases (date of search: October 2021). For the eligible studies, both descriptive data, and data to assess the potential risk of bias, were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Of 3391 references retrieved, 199 were eligible. These RCTs were published in 122 journals, most of them in English (101, 82.1%) and were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) (107, 87.7%). Moreover, 32 (26.2%) of those included in the JCR were classified under nursing. Two thirds (81, 66.4%) of the journals followed the CONSORT guidelines. A total of 65 RCTs (33.7%) had a high overall risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Most of the identified RCTs were published in journals not specific to nursing and in English language. Also, shortcomings in RCT design and reporting were observed despite recommendations to adhere the CONSORT guidelines. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive identification of RCTs in nursing may require searching in journals other than nursing-related. RCTs from Spanish research teams are more likely to be published in international journals published in English. CONSORT should be strongly advised to encourage proper design and reporting of RCTs.

Follow-up care of 12 months of patients with bladder cancer in Spain: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

The therapeutic approach of bladder cancer strongly determines its prognosis. We describe the treatments and outcomes for a Spanish cohort of patients with bladder cancer for the first 12 months after diagnosis and identify the factors that influenced the decision to undergo the treatment received. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, cohort study including primary bladder cancer patients during the first 12 months after diagnosis. The clinical outcomes were performance status (ECOG), adverse events and any cause of mortality. We stratified the analysis by factors that might influence the treatments received. We conducted univariate and multivariable logistic regression models to assess which patient and tumor characteristics were associated with receiving adjuvant treatment in the subgroup of noninvasive bladder cancer patients. In total, 314 patients were included (85% men; 53.8% >70 years) in 7 tertiary Spanish hospitals; 82.2% had a noninvasive urothelial bladder cancer (NMIBC). Patients received mostly surgery plus adjuvant therapy (67.7%). BCG (32.8% patients) was the most frequently administered adjuvant therapy, followed by intravesical chemotherapy (17.8% patients) and radiotherapy (10.8%). The variability of administered treatments among hospitals was low. Patients with NMIBC were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy if they had a higher educational level, some comorbidities and a high-grade tumor. The number of fully active patients (ECOG 0) significantly decreased during the first year of follow-up from 58% to 36 % (OR: 2.41, 95%CI 1.82-3.20); at 12-month follow-up 10.8% patients had died from any cause. In conclusion, most of the patients had a NMIBC. Surgery alone or plus adjuvant therapy were the commonest curative options of bladder cancer. BCG therapy was the adjuvant therapy most frequently administered. Higher educational level, presence of comorbidities and a high-grade tumor were associated with adjuvant therapy. Patient performance status was worsening over time. Almost 1 of 10 patients died during the first year of follow-up.

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.

Systematic mapping review of orthognathic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic mapping review AIM AND SCOPE: The objective of this mapping review was to identify, describe, and organize clinical research currently available from systematic reviews and primary studies regarding co-interventions and different surgical modalities used in orthognathic surgery (OS) and their outcomes. METHODS: Systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials, and observational studies that evaluated perioperative OS co-interventions and surgical modalities were identified in an exhaustive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Lilacs, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Grey literature was also screened. RESULTS: Included were 35 SRs and 253 primary studies, 103 from SRs, and another 150 identified in our search. Overall, SR quality was rated as critically low, with only two SRs rated as of high quality. 19 questions on population, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (PICO) extracted from the SRs focused on osteosynthesis methods, surgical cutting devices, and use of antibiotics, corticosteroids, and induced hypotension. Also identified were 15 research gaps. Evidence bubble maps were created to graphically depict the available evidence. CONCLUSION: Future high-quality research, both primary and secondary, is needed to address the knowledge gaps identified in this systematic mapping review.

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.

Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews: GROOVE tool.

Overlap of primary studies among systematic reviews (SRs) is one of the main methodological challenges when conducting overviews. If not assessed properly, overlapped primary studies may mislead findings, since they may have a major influence either in qualitative analyses or in statistical weight. Moreover, overlapping SRs may represent the existence of duplicated efforts. Matrices of evidence and the calculation of the overall corrected covered area (CCA) are appropriate methods to address this issue, but they seem to be not comprehensive enough. In this article we present Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews (GROOVE), an easy-to-use tool for overview authors. Starting from a matrix of evidence, GROOVE provides the number of included primary studies and SRs included in the matrix; the absolute number of overlapped and non-overlapped primary studies; and an overall CCA assessment. The tool also provides a detailed CCA assessment for each possible pair of SRs (or "nodes"), with a graphical and easy-to-read representation of these results. Additionally, it includes an advanced optional usage, incorporating structural missingness in the matrix. In this article, we show the details about how to use GROOVE, what results it achieves and how the tool obtains these results. GROOVE is intended to improve the overlap assessment by making it easier, faster, and more friendly for both authors and readers. The tool is freely available at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U2MS4 and https://es.cochrane.org/es/groovetool.

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.