Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Biliary tract neoplasms; Biological therapy; ImmunotherapyNeoplàsies de les vies biliars; Teràpia biològica; ImmunoteràpiaNeoplasias de las vias biliares; Terapia biológica; InmunoterapiaBackground: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Results: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55–0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87–1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28–1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. Conclusion: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.This study is funded through a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI18/00034), co-financed by funds from the European Regional Development Fund

Comparative analysis of systemic oncological treatments and best supportive care for advanced gastresophageal cancer : A comprehensive scoping review and evidence map

Altres ajuts: acords transformatius de la UABTo identify, describe, and organize the available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments compared to best supportive care (BSC) for advanced gastresophageal cancer. We conducted a thorough search across MEDLINE (PubMed), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Our inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies involving patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biological/targeted therapy compared to BSC. The outcomes included survival, quality of life, functional status, toxicity, and quality of end-of-life care. We included and mapped 72 studies, comprising SRs, experimental and observational designs, 12 on esophageal cancer, 51 on gastric cancer, and 10 both locations. Most compared schemes including chemotherapy (47 studies), but did not report therapeutic lines. Moreover, BSC as a control arm was poorly defined, including integral support and placebo. Data favor the use of systemic oncological treatments in survival outcomes and BSC in toxicity. Data for outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and quality of end-of-life care were limited. We found sundry evidence gaps specifically in assessing new treatments such as immunotherapy and important outcomes such as functional status, symptoms control, hospital admissions, and the quality of end-life care for all the treatments. There are important evidence gaps regarding new for patients with advanced gastresophageal cancer and the effect of systemic oncological treatments on important patient-centered outcomes beyond survival. Future research should clearly describe the population included, specifying previous treatments and considering therapeutic, and consider all patient-centered outcomes. Otherwise, it will be complex to apply research results into practice

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers : An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Altres ajuts: This study is funded through a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI18/00034), co-financed by funds from the European Regional Development Fund.Hepatobiliary cancers (that include hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer) are usually treated with systemic oncological treatments (i.e., chemotherapy, immunotherapy and biological or targeted therapies) mainly due to their improvement in survival. However, the trade-off between these therapies and usual practice supportive care is not clear, and other outcomes beyond survival should be considered in advanced stages, such as quality of life or symptom control. The present study is part of a wider project aiming to conduct broad evidence syntheses assessing the effects of systemic oncological treatments versus usual practice supportive care for patients with advanced non-intestinal digestive cancers. We performed an overview of systematic reviews assessing the effects of systemic oncological treatments versus usual practice supportive care for patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancer. We found evidence that for these patients (specifically for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma), systemic oncological treatments tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Much of systematic reviews included was of low quality and highly overlapped. Nevertheless, the evidence we found failed to report other important outcomes that could be critical for decision making, including quality of life or symptom control. Future research assessing these patient-important outcomes is needed. Background: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Results: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. Conclusion: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Results: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55–0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87–1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28–1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. Conclusion: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making

Systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a scoping review and evidence map

Altres ajuts: acord transformatiu CRUE-CSICPurpose: To identify, describe, and organise currently available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) (chemotherapy, targeted/biological therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Methods: We conducted a scoping review and evidence mapping, adhering to PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. We included systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies evaluating SOTs compared to BSC or no treatment in patients with advanced PC. Two independent reviewers performed the screening process and data extraction. We developed evidence maps as an interactive visualization display, including the assessed interventions and outcomes. Results: Of the 50,601 records obtained from our search, we included 43 studies: 2 SRs, 16 RCTs, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 20 observational studies, and 1 protocol for a quasi-experimental study. Forty-two studies reported survival-related outcomes and most favoured SOTs, while fve reported toxicity and most favoured BSC. Other patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, were scarcely reported. Conclusions: This study highlights the current evidence gaps in studies assessing treatments for patients with advanced PC, mainly the lack of reports of non-survival-related outcomes, pointing out research areas that need further attention to make better recommendations for these patients