Search

Therapeutic advancements have improved pediatric cancer prognosis, shifting the interest towards the management of psychosocial burden and treatment-related morbidity. To critically appraise the available evidence, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on supportive interventions for childhood cancer. Thirty-four publications (92 meta-analyses, 1 network, 14,521 participants) were included. The most concrete data showed a reduction in procedure-related pain and distress through hypnosis. Moreover, exercise improved the functional mobility of the patients. Regarding pharmacological interventions, most of the meta-analyses pertained to the treatment of nausea/vomiting (ondansetron was effective) and infections/febrile neutropenia [granulocyte-(macrophage) colony-stimulating factors showed benefits]. Substantial heterogeneity was detected in 31 associations. Conclusively, supportive interventions for pediatric cancer are being thoroughly evaluated. However, most of the studies are small and of moderate quality, highlighting the need for more randomized evidence in order to increase precision in improving the quality of life of patients, survivors and their families.

Treatment advancements in pediatric cancer have improved prognosis, but the strength of supporting evidence has not been thoroughly evaluated. To critically appraise it, we performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions for pediatric malignancies. Fourteen publications (68 meta-analyses, 31,496 participants) were eligible. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was investigated at most. Substantial heterogeneity was detected in 10 associations, with limited indications for small-study effects and excess-significance bias. The most concrete evidence pertained to the use of methotrexate and vincristine-prednisone pulses for ALL, improving event-free survival. Evidence regarding other cancers was relatively weak. Conclusively, we found few small meta-analyses focusing mainly on ALL. Randomized evidence stemming from adult populations still seems to serve as valuable indirect evidence backup. More randomized evidence and individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to increase certainty and precision in the care of pediatric cancer patients.