Evidence-based recommendations for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Brazilian Gastrointestinal Tumours Group.

PURPOSE: As of 2020, the world is facing the great challenge of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While the overall mortality is low, the virus is highly virulent and may infect millions of people worldwide. This will consequently burden health systems, particularly by those individuals considered to be at high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. Such risk factors include advanced age, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, diabetes and cancer. However, few data on the outcomes of cancer patients infected by SARS CoV-2 exist. Therefore, there is a lack of guidance on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic. We sought to propose specific recommendations about the management of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: The Brazilian Gastrointestinal Tumours Group board of directors and members sought up-to-date scientific literature on each tumour type and discussed all recommendations by virtual meetings to provide evidence-based-and sometimes, expert opinion-recommendation statements. Our objectives were to recommend evidence-based approaches to both treat and minimise the risk of COVID-19 for cancer patients, and simultaneously propose how to decrease the use of hospital resources at a time these resources need to be available to treat COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Overall and tumour-specific recommendations were made by stage (including surgical, locoregional, radiotherapy, systemic treatments and follow-up strategies) for the most common gastrointestinal malignancies: esophagus, gastric, pancreas, bile duct, hepatocellular, colorectal, anal cancer and neuroendocrine tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Our recommendations emphasise the importance of treating cancer patients, using the best evidence available, while simultaneously taking into consideration the world-wide health resource hyperutilisation to treat non-cancer COVID-19 patients.

Unraveling molecular pathways of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas of the gastroenteropancreatic system: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are rare and aggressive tumors. Their molecular pathogenesis is still largely unknown, and consequently, the best therapeutic management also remains to be determined. We conducted a systematic review on molecular alterations found in gastroenteropancreatic NECs (GEP-NECs) and discuss potential applications of targeted therapies in setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of studies about molecular features in tumor tissues of patients with GEP-NECs. The Medline, Lilacs, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Opengrey databases were sought, without time, study design or language restrictions. RESULTS: Of the 1.564 studies retrieved, 41 were eligible: 33 were retrospective studies and eight were case reports. The studies spanned the years 1997-2017 and involved mostly colorectal, stomach and pancreas primary tumors. Molecular alterations in the TP53 gene and the p53 protein expression were the most commonly observed, regardless of the primary site. Other consistently found molecular alterations were microsatellite instability (MSI) in approximately 10% of gastric and colorectal NEC, and altered signaling cascades of p16/Rb/cyclin D1, Hedgehog and Notch pathways, and somatic mutations in KRAS, BRAF, RB1 and Bcl2. In studies of mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinomas (MANECs) the molecular features of GEP-NEC largely resemble their carcinoma/adenocarcinomas tumor counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of data about the molecular drivers associated with GEP-NEC, some alterations may be potentially targeted with new cancer-directed therapies. Collaborative clinical trials for patients with advanced GEP-NEC are urgently needed.

Guidelines for the management of neuroendocrine tumours by the Brazilian gastrointestinal tumour group.

Neuroendocrine tumours are a heterogeneous group of diseases with a significant variety of diagnostic tests and treatment modalities. Guidelines were developed by North American and European groups to recommend their best management. However, local particularities and relativisms found worldwide led us to create Brazilian guidelines. Our consensus considered the best feasible strategies in an environment involving more limited resources. We believe that our recommendations may be extended to other countries with similar economic standards.

A "miracle" cancer drug in the era of social media: A survey of Brazilian oncologists' opinions and experience with phosphoethanolamine.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who are treating cancer have often used alternative therapies. In the internet era, information can be broadcasted widely, and this happened with phosphoethanolamine in Brazil, where this substance was claimed by the population to be the "cure for cancer." METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study developed by the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC). An objectively structured questionnaire was sent by e-mail and SMS to active MDs members of the SBOC. Descriptive statistics was used to evaluate the data. Statistical significance between the variables was tested by Pearson's Chi-squared test (p<0.05 was considered significance). RESULTS: The survey was sent to 1,072 oncologists, and 398 (37.1%) answered at least part of it. One hundred and fifteen (28.9%) had followed patients who had used phosphoethanolamine. Among these, 14 (12.2%) observed adverse events and four (3.5%) attributed clinical benefit to the substance. Most of the oncologists (n=331; 83.2%) believe that it should only be used as part of a clinical trial protocol. Most physicians did not recommend this drug to their patients (n=311; 78.1%). Oncologists in Southeast, South and Midwest Brazil were more likely to have patients taking the drug compared to the Northern and Northeastern regions. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey to assess the opinion and experience of oncologists about this alternative therapy. Most oncologists in Brazil do not believe that synthetic phosphoethanolamine is active in cancer treatment, do not recommend its use without proper evaluation, and state that it should only be available to patients in the context of clinical trials.

A "miracle" cancer drug in the era of social media: A survey of Brazilian oncologists' opinions and experience with phosphoethanolamine / Uma "milagrosa" droga contra o câncer na era da mídia social: uma pesquisa sobre a opinião e a experiência dos oncologistas brasileiros com a fosfoetanolamina

Summary Introduction: Patients who are treating cancer have often used alternative therapies. In the internet era, information can be broadcasted widely, and this happened with phosphoethanolamine in Brazil, where this substance was claimed by the population to be the "cure for cancer." Method: This is a cross-sectional study developed by the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC). An objectively structured questionnaire was sent by e-mail and SMS to active MDs members of the SBOC. Descriptive statistics was used to evaluate the data. Statistical significance between the variables was tested by Pearson's Chi-squared test (p<0.05 was considered significance). Results: The survey was sent to 1,072 oncologists, and 398 (37.1%) answered at least part of it. One hundred and fifteen (28.9%) had followed patients who had used phosphoethanolamine. Among these, 14 (12.2%) observed adverse events and four (3.5%) attributed clinical benefit to the substance. Most of the oncologists (n=331; 83.2%) believe that it should only be used as part of a clinical trial protocol. Most physicians did not recommend this drug to their patients (n=311; 78.1%). Oncologists in Southeast, South and Midwest Brazil were more likely to have patients taking the drug compared to the Northern and Northeastern regions. Conclusion: This is the first survey to assess the opinion and experience of oncologists about this alternative therapy. Most oncologists in Brazil do not believe that synthetic phosphoethanolamine is active in cancer treatment, do not recommend its use without proper evaluation, and state that it should only be available to patients in the context of clinical trials.

Resumo Introdução: Alguns pacientes com diagnóstico de câncer utilizam terapias alternativas. Na era da internet, as informações podem se dissipar de forma rápida e abrangente, como foi o caso da fosfoetanolamina no Brasil, onde foi aclamada pela população como sendo a "cura para o câncer". Método: Trata-se de um estudo transversal desenvolvido pela Sociedade Brasileira de Oncologia Clínica (SBOC). Através de e-mail e SMS, enviou-se um questionário com perguntas objetivas para oncologistas membros ativos da SBOC. Os dados foram avaliados por meio de estatística descritiva. A significância estatística entre as variáveis ​​foi testada pelo teste Qui-quadrado de Pearson (p<0,05 foi considerado significativo). Resultados: O questionário foi enviado para 1.072 oncologistas, tendo 398 (37,1%) respondido pelo menos parte dele. Cento e quinze (28,9%) tinham pacientes que fizeram uso da fosfoetanolamina. Desses, 14 (12,2%) observaram eventos adversos e quatro (3,5%) atribuíram benefício clínico para a substância. A maioria (n=331; 83,2%) acreditava que ela só deveria ser utilizada dentro de um ensaio clínico. A principal recomendação dada aos pacientes foi contra o seu uso (n=311; 78,1%). Oncologistas das regiões Sudeste, Sul e Centro-Oeste tiveram mais pacientes que tomaram a substância quando comparados com as regiões Norte e Nordeste. Conclusão: Este é o primeiro estudo que avalia a opinião dos oncologistas sobre essa terapia alternativa e sua experiência. A maioria dos oncologistas brasileiros não acredita que a fosfoetanolamina sintética seja ativa no tratamento do câncer, não recomendando seu uso sem avaliação adequada, e afirmam que a substância só deve estar disponível no contexto de ensaios clínicos.