Human papillomavirus infection and non-oropharyngeal head and neck cancers: an umbrella review of meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The causative and prognostic roles of human papillomavirus (HPV) in non-oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck are uncertain. This umbrella review assessed the strength and quality of evidence and graded the evidence derived from published meta-analyses on this subject. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Meta-analyses of observational studies and randomized trials were included. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence of association was graded according to the established criteria: strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant. RESULTS: 15 meta-analyses were evaluated. The association with HPV was highly suggestive of oral (OR = 2.40, [1.87-3.07], P < 0.00001) and nasopharyngeal cancers (OR = 17.82 [11.20-28.35], P < 0.00001). Improved survival emerged only in hypopharyngeal carcinoma and was confirmed in studies in which only p16 + cancers were considered. CONCLUSION: HPV infection may increase the risk of oral cavity and nasopharyngeal cancer. However, the prognosis was not influenced, except in hypopharyngeal carcinoma.

Effects of hypertension on cancer survival: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is usually associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. Uncertainty exists about the possible role of hypertension as a poor prognostic factor for cancer-specific mortality (CSM). To assess the association between pre-existing hypertension and the risk of mortality and relapse after a diagnosis of cancer, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched from inception until May 2020, without language restrictions, for observational studies reporting the prognosis of patients with hypertension and cancer. The primary outcome of the study refers to CSM in hypertensive vs nonhypertensive patients, and secondary endpoints were overall mortality (OM) and progression- or relapse-free survival. The effect size was reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Mortality and relapse associated with hypertension in patients with various cancers were evaluated among 1 603 437 participants (n = 66 studies). Overall, diagnosis of cancer and hypertension was associated with an increased independent risk of OM (HR = 1.2 [95% CI, 1.13-1.27], P < .01) and CSM (HR = 1.12 [95% CI, 1.04-1.21], P < .01) but not of relapse (HR = 1.08 [95% CI, 0.98-1.19], P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Among cancer patients, those with pre-existing hypertension have a poorer outcome, probably due to multifactorial reasons. Adequate control of lifestyle, more intensive follow-ups, monitoring for hypertension- and anticancer-related cardiovascular complications, and establishing multidisciplinary cardio-oncology units can be useful measures for reducing mortality and improving care in this setting.

Better survival of patients with oligo- compared with polymetastatic cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 173 studies.

Background: The modern concept of oligometastatic (OM) state has been initially developed to describe patients with a low burden of disease and with a potential for cure with local ablative treatments. We systematically assessed the risk of death and relapse of oligometastatic (OM) cancers compared to cancers with more diffuse metastatic spread, through a meta-analysis of published data.  Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting prognosis of patients with OM solid tumors. Risk of death and relapse were extracted and pooled to provide an adjusted hazard ratio with a 95% confidence interval (HR 95%CI).  The primary outcome of the study refers to overall mortality in OM vs. polymetastatic (PM) patients.  Results. Mortality and relapse associated with OM state in patients with cancer were evaluated among 104,234 participants (n=173 studies). Progression-free survival was better in patients with OM disease (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.68; P <.001; n=69 studies). Also, OM cancers were associated with a better overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68; P<.01; n=161 studies). In colorectal (CRC), breast, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) the reduction in the risk of death for OM patients were 35, 38, 30 and 42%, respectively. Biliary tract and cervical cancer do not significantly better in OM stage likely for paucity of data. Conclusions. Patients with OM cancers have a significantly better prognosis than those with more widespread stage IV tumors. In OM cancer patients a personalized approach should be pursued.

A Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations for Cancer Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has inevitably caused those involved in cancer care to change clinical practice in order to minimize the risk of infection while maintaining cancer treatment as a priority. General advice during the pandemic suggests that most patients continue with ongoing therapies or planned surgeries, while follow-up visits may instead be delayed until the resolution of the outbreak. We conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify articles published in English language that reported on care recommendations for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic from its inception up to 1st June 2020, using the terms "(cancer or tumor) AND (COVID 19)". Articles were selected for relevance and split into five categories: (1) personal recommendations of single or multiple authors, (2) recommendations of single authoritative centers, (3) recommendations of panels of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, (4) recommendations of multicenter cooperative groups, (5) official guidelines or recommendations of health authorities. Of the 97 included studies, 10 were personal recommendations of single or multiple independent authors, 16 were practice recommendations of single authoritative cancer centers, 35 were recommendations provided by panel of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, 19 were cooperative group position papers, and finally, 17 were official guidelines statements. The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency, and has rapidly modified our clinical practice. Delaying unnecessary treatment, minimizing toxicity, and identifying care priorities for surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies must be viewed as basic priorities in the COVID-19 era.