Search

Background: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. Objective: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. Design: A multistep process was followed to develop the check-list: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. Setting: International collaboration. Participants: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. Measurements: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. Results: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. Limitation: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further vali-dation in real-life use. Conclusion: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. Primary Funding Source: None.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported high tumour response rates for platinum-containing regimens in the treatment of women with metastatic breast cancer. Most of these studies were conducted prior to the 'intrinsic subtype' era, and did not specifically focus on metastatic triple-negative breast cancers (mTNBCs). OBJECTIVES: To identify and review the evidence from randomised trials comparing platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in the management of women with metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 May 2015. We identified further potentially relevant studies from handsearching references of previous trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Prior to this review update, the most recent search for studies was conducted in May 2003 for the original 2004 review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in women with metastatic breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility and quality, and extracted all relevant data from each study. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and fixed-effect models were used for meta-analyses. Objective tumour response rates (OTRRs) and toxicities were analysed as binary (dichotomous) outcomes with risk ratios (RRs) used as measures of effects. Quality of life data were extracted where available. GRADE was used to rate the quality of evidence for survival and tumour response outcomes at the level of subgroups selected and unselected for mTNBC, and for toxicity outcomes based on combining data from selected and unselected populations. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 15 new eligible treatment-comparisons from 12 studies. In total, 28 treatment-comparisons, involving 4418 women, from 24 studies are now included in one or more meta-analyses. Of the 28 treatment-comparisons, 19 and 16 had published or provided extractable time-to-event data on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival/time to progression (PFS/TTP), respectively. All 28 treatment-comparisons provided OTRR data that could be included in meta-analyses. Most women recruited to the studies were not selected on the basis of mTNBC status.In a subgroup of three treatment-comparisons assessing women with mTNBC, platinum-containing regimens may have provided a survival benefit (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; low-quality evidence). In women unselected for intrinsic subtypes such as mTNBC, there was little or no effect on survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; high-quality evidence). This effect was similar to the combined analysis of survival data for both populations (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07; I2 =39%, 1868 deaths, 2922 women; 19 trials). The difference in treatment effects between mTNBC women compared with unselected women was of borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05).Data from three treatment-comparisons with mTNBC participants showed that platinum regimens may improve PFS/TTP (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72; low-quality evidence). Thirteen treatment-comparisons of unselected metastatic participants showed that there was probably a small PFS/TTP benefit for platinum recipients, although the confidence interval included no difference (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). Combined analysis of data from an estimated 1772 women who progressed or died out of 2136 women selected or unselected for mTNBC indicated that platinum-containing regimens improved PFS/TTP (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). There was marked evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.0004; I2 = 63%). The larger treatment benefit in mTNBC women compared with unselected women was statistically significant (P < 0.0001).There was low-quality evidence of better tumour response in both subgroups of women with mTNBC and unselected women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.56; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.19, respectively). Combined analysis of both populations was closer to the effect in unselected women (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22; 4130 women). There was considerable evidence of heterogeneity (P < 0.0001; I2 = 64%), which may reflect between-study differences and general difficulties in assessing response, as well as the varying potencies of the comparators.Compared with women receiving non-platinum regimens: rates of grade 3 and 4 nausea/vomiting were probably higher among women receiving cisplatin- (RR 2.65, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.34; 1731 women; moderate-quality evidence) but the effect from carboplatin-containing regimens was less certain (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; 1441 women; moderate-quality evidence); rates of grade 3 and 4 anaemia were higher among women receiving cisplatin- (RR 3.72, 95% CI 2.36 to 5.88; 1644 women; high-quality evidence) and carboplatin-containing regimens (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.70; 1441 women; high-quality evidence); rates of grade 3 and 4 hair loss (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.58; 1452 women; high-quality evidence) and leukopenia (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.57; 3176 women; moderate-quality evidence) were higher among women receiving platinum-containing regimens (regardless of platinum agent). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women with metastatic breast cancer who do not have triple-negative disease, there is high-quality evidence of little or no survival benefit and excess toxicity from platinum-based regimens. There is preliminary low-quality evidence of a moderate survival benefit from platinum-based regimens for women with mTNBC. Further randomised trials of platinum-based regimens in this subpopulation of women with metastatic breast cancer are required.

Contains fulltext : 124053.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 10 februari 2014 Promotores : Velden, J. van der, Ghersi, D. Co-promotores : Baltussen, R.M.P.M., Rademaker, C.M.A.

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

The aim of this systematic review was to examine studies that have investigated sustaining hope during prognostic and end-of-life issues discussions with terminally ill patients and their families. A comprehensive search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and handsearching, from 1985 to June 2006, identified 27 studies. This review suggests that the issues surrounding hope in this context are complex. Despite the lack of unanimity among researchers regarding the definition of hope, findings suggest that balancing hope with honesty is an important skill for health professionals (HPs). Many patients seem to be able to maintain a sense of hope despite acknowledging the terminal nature of their illness. Patients and caregivers mostly preferred honest and accurate information, provided with empathy and understanding. Many different sources of hope were identified in this context in broad aspects of life, not just the medical situation. HPs need to recognize this spectrum of hope and appreciate that patients may simultaneously hope for 'cure' while acknowledging the terminal nature of their illness. HPs may help patients to cope with their terminal prognosis by exploring and fostering realistic forms of hope that are meaningful for the particular patient and their family.