Safety and efficacy of vitamin B in cancer treatments: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With rising rates of complementary and alternative medicine use, the exploration of complementary and alternative medicine integration into oncology treatments is becoming increasingly prevalent. Vitamin B compounds including B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9, and B12, have all been proposed as potentially beneficial in cancer prevention and treatment as well as side effect management; however, many studies contain contradicting evidence regarding the utility of B vitamins within oncology. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Vitamin B supplementation in the oncology setting. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted following The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Reviews guidelines, using pre-specified search terms in PubMed to include randomized control trials, clinical trials, and case studies. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for inclusion, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts, before the included articles underwent data extraction and quality appraisal. Data extraction was conducted through COVIDENCE, which was used to manage and track the data during the search process. RESULTS: Out of 694 articles initially identified, 25 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Designs of the studies varied, including randomized control trials, clinical trials, and case/cohort studies. The impact of vitamin supplementation on cancer risk varied. Several studies found that certain B vitamin supplementation lowered cancer risk: B9 and B6 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (n = 1200 patients) and in pancreatic cancer (n = 258 patients); B3 in hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 494,860 patients); B6 in breast cancer (n = 27,853 patients); and B9 in BRCA1-positive breast cancer (n = 400 patients). However, some studies found that certain B vitamin supplementation increased the risk or negative outcomes of cancer: B6 during nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment (n = 592 patients); B6 in risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 494,860 patients); and B9 plasma levels in breast cancer (n = 164 patients). Due to the many adverse effects that occur in cancer treatment, the effectiveness of Vitamin B supplementation in alleviating adverse effects was evaluated. In two separate studies, Vitamin B6 and Vitamin B12 supplementation with acupuncture was found to be effective as adjunct therapies aimed to reduce chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (n = 23 patients and n = 104 patients, respectively). No significant findings were established regarding B vitamin supplementation in chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we concluded that B vitamin supplements have varying data regarding safety and efficacy in cancer. Taking into account the etiology of the cancer, the specific B-vitamin, and the presence of any side effects could help guide utilization of the data found in this review. Large, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings among various cancer diagnoses and stages. Given the widespread utilization of supplements, healthcare providers should understand the safety and efficacy of vitamin B supplementation to address questions that arise in caring for those with cancer.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline.

PURPOSE: In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting. RECOMMENDATIONS: The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.

Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement.

PURPOSE: To endorse Cancer Care Ontario's guideline on Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline, published in May 2015, are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer guideline with added qualifying statements. The Cancer Care Ontario recommendation regarding 5-alpha reductase inhibitors was not endorsed by the ASCO panel. RECOMMENDATIONS: For most patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤ 6) localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is the recommended disease management strategy. Factors including younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into account when making management decisions. Select patients with low-volume, intermediate-risk (Gleason 3 + 4 = 7) prostate cancer may be offered active surveillance. Active surveillance protocols should include prostate-specific antigen testing, digital rectal examinations, and serial prostate biopsies. Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may have a role in patients with discordant clinical and/or pathologic findings. Patients who are reclassified to a higher-risk category (Gleason score ≥ 7) or who have significant increases in tumor volume on subsequent biopsies should be offered active therapy.

Complicated lower extremity wound caused by immune thrombocytopenic purpura leading to hypercoagulable state: a team approach for limb salvage.

This article describes a complicated lower extremity wound due to hypercoagulable state caused by immune thrombocytopenic purpura. A team approach was important to limb salvage. A literature review is included.

Combined chemoradiotherapy regimens of paclitaxel and carboplatin for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II locally advanced multi-modality protocol.

PURPOSE: This phase II noncomparative randomized trial was conducted to determine the optimal sequencing and integration of paclitaxel/carboplatin with standard daily thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), in patients with locally advanced unresected stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Survival data were compared with historical standard sequential chemoradiotherapy data from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresected stages IIIA and IIIB NSCLC, with Karnofsky performance status > or = 70% and weight loss < or = 10%, received two cycles of induction paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration time curve [AUC] = 6) followed by TRT 63.0 Gy (arm 1, sequential) or two cycles of induction paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 6) followed by weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 2) with concurrent TRT 63.0 Gy (arm 2, induction/concurrent), or weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 2)/TRT (63.0 Gy) followed by two cycles of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 6; arm 3, concurrent/consolidation). RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 39.6 months, median overall survival was 13.0, 12.7, and 16.3 months for arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During induction chemotherapy, grade 3/4 granulocytopenia occurred in 32% and 38% of patients on study arms 1 and 2, respectively. The most common locoregional grade 3/4 toxicity during and after TRT was esophagitis, which was more pronounced with the administration of concurrent chemoradiotherapy on study arms 2 and 3 (19% and 28%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Concurrent weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin, and TRT followed by consolidation seems to be associated with the best outcome, although this schedule was associated with greater toxicity.