Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recently, studies have demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy could be associated with better outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the benefit seems to be dependent on the drugs used in the chemotherapy regimens. This systematic review evaluated the strength of data on efficacy of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced NSCLC. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), toxicities and treatment related mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) were used for the meta-analysis and were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included results reported from five RCTs, with a total of 2,252 patients included in the primary analysis, all of them using platinum-based chemotherapy regimens. Compared to chemotherapy alone, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy resulted in a significant longer OS (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; p = 0.04), longer PFS (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; p<0.00001) and higher response rates (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.89 to 2.89; p<0.00001). We found no heterogeneity between trials, in all comparisons. There was a slight increase in toxicities in bevacizumab group, as well as an increased rate of treatment-related mortality. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC prolongs OS, PFS and RR. Considering the toxicities added, and the small absolute benefits found, bevacizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy can be considered an option in selected patients with advanced NSCLC. However, risks and benefits should be discussed with patients before decision making.

Cetuximab and panitumumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor. Both drugs are active against RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer after chemotherapy failure, with similar efficacy and toxicity profiles. However, their cost and limited survival benefits may compromise incorporation in the Brazilian public healthcare system, the Unified Heath System (Sistema Único de Saúde) (SUS). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model from the Brazilian Public health perspective and a lifetime horizon in patients with RAS -wt mCRC. Transition probabilities and mortality rates were extracted from randomized studies. Treatment costs were obtained from price tables regulated by the Brazilian Health Ministry. The World Health Organization recommendation of three times GDP per capita was used to define the cost-effectiveness threshold. The use of cetuximab or panitumumab for chemotherapy-refractory mCRC patients resulted in 0.22 additional life-years relative to BSC, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $58,240 and $52,772 per LY, respectively. That exceeds the pre-specified threshold for cost-effectiveness. Acquisition of biological agents was the major driver of increased costs. Our economic evaluation demonstrates that both cetuximab and panitumumab are not a cost-effective approach in RAS-wt mCRC patients. Discussion about drug price should be prioritized to enable incorporation of these monoclonal antibodies in the SUS.

Purpose Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. Methods A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. Results Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. Conclusion Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

PurposeThe outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients.MethodsEighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session.ResultsThe recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available.ConclusionThis manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

Background Chemotherapy is the mainstay of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treatment. Based on expert opinion, the use of radiotherapy (RT) is currently preferred in some institutions as consolidative treatment for patients with localized disease. The lack of conclusive data coming from conflicting studies about the impact of treatment demands a systematic review, which could provide the most reliable assessment for clinical decision-making. We evaluate the addition of RT post-CT, for aggressive and localized NHL (ALNHL). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus RT were searched in databases. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a fized-effect model. Results Four trials (1,796 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All trials tested the use of RT after systemic therapy comprising anthracycline-based chemotherapy. This systematic review showed that RT enhances PFS after chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03), with no impact on ORR and OS. Some heterogeneity between trials could limit the conclusions about OS. Toxicity data could not be pooled due to differences in reporting adverse events. Conclusions This systematic review with meta-analysis shows no improvement in survival when adding RT to systemic therapy for ALNHL. Our conclusions are limited by the available data. Further evaluations of new RT technologies and its association with biologic agents are needed.

Background: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. Methods: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. Results: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. Conclusions: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.

Background Bevacizumab has an important role in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. However, clinical trials studying its effect have involved distinct chemotherapy regimens with divergent results. The aim of this meta-analysis is to gather current data and evaluate not only the efficacy of bevacizumab, but also the impact of divergent backbone regimens. Methods A wide search of randomized clinical trials using bevacizumab in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer was performed in Embase, MEDLINE, LILACS and Cochrane databases. Meeting presentations and abstracts were also investigated. The resulting data were examined and included in the meta-analysis according to the type of regimen. Results Six trials, totaling 3060 patients, were analyzed. There was an advantage to using bevacizumab for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.84; CI: 0.77-0.91; P < 0.00001 and HR = 0.72; CI: 0.66-0.78; P < 0.00001, respectively). However, heterogeneity of results was very high for both outcomes, and subgroup analyses supported the OS advantage with bevacizumab restricted to irinotecan-based regimens. Infusional fluorouracil subsets involved a minor proportion, and did not demonstrate statistical benefit in PFS or OS. Regarding toxicity, higher rates of grades 3-4 hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolic events and proteinuria were uniformly observed with bevacizumab, leading to increased treatment interruptions (HR = 1.47; P = 0.0004). Conclusions Bevacizumab has efficacy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, but the current data are insufficient to support efficacy in all regimens, especially infusional fluorouracil regimens, like FOLFIRI and FOLFOX.

Purpose Hand–foot syndrome (HSF) is a distinctive adverse event relatively frequent to some chemotherapeutic agents as capecitabine, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, sorafenib and other tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Since the prevention of HFS would be crucial to avoid treatment interruptions and delays, many studies have been conducted with this purpose. Methods The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical efficacy of prevention strategies for HFS, through a wide search of electronic databases as well as congress abstracts. The endpoints evaluated were the dichotomic data for mild (Grade 1), moderate to severe (Grades 2 to 3) and all-grade HFS. Meta-analysis was calculated through RevMan v5.1 software. Results Amongst 295 studies identified, only ten met the inclusion criteria. Celecoxib prevented both moderate to severe (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.20–0.73, P  = 0.003) and all-grade HFS (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.29–0.78, P  = 0.003), whereas pyridoxine and topical urea/lactic acid formulations failed to prove efficacy. There were no proven benefits in mild HFS. The use of topical antiperspirant has not been shown to improve results, according to a single trial. Conclusions From all available possibilities for the prevention of HFS, celecoxib appears to be the most promising, with statistically significant results. Larger, multicentric studies are required to reinforce this finding.

Context A recently published meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) showed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) did not significantly increase cardiovascular mortality in prostate cancer patients. However, cardiovascular morbidity, which can impact quality of life, was not evaluated. Objective To evaluate the risk of cardiovascular morbidity associated with ADT in patients with prostate cancer. Methods We conducted a literature search from January 1960 to June 2012. RCT and large cohort studies that evaluated first-line endocrine therapy and ADT longer than 6 months were screened for inclusion. Results In total, 126,898 patients were included in four cohort studies, and 10,760 patients were included in nine RCTs. Analysis of the RCTs showed no differences in the development of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 0.92–1.64; I 2 : 0 %) among the patients receiving ADT or not. The analysis of randomized studies that reported other nonfatal cardiovascular events demonstrated a significant increase in such events in the group receiving ADT (OR 1.55; 95 % CI 1.09–2.20; I 2 : 0 %). When the large cohort studies were included in the analysis, an increased risk of AMI among men with ADT was found (OR 2.01, 95 % CI 1.90–2.13; I 2 : 91,3 %). Conclusion The use of ADT in prostate cancer patients corresponded with a significant increase in cardiovascular morbidity associated with AMI and with nonfatal events. Therefore, ADT is linked to a significant negative impact on quality of life. Periodic cardiovascular evaluation is required for these patients.