Vitamin D and colorectal cancer - A practical review of the literature.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and the second cause worldwide. Its incidence rates have been decreasing in the overall population in the US in the past few decades, but with increasing rates in the population younger than 50 years old. Environmental factors are supposed to be involved in the development of the disease, with strong evidence favoring an influence of the diet and lifestyle. A diet high in red meat and calories, and low in fiber, fruits and vegetables increases the risk of CRC, as well as physical inactivity. The influence of low calcium intake and low levels of vitamin D on the risk of the disease and on the clinical outcomes of CRC patients has also been investigated. Hypovitaminosis D has been highly prevalent worldwide and associated with several chronic diseases, including malignancies. Vitamin D is a steroid hormone with the main function of regulating bone metabolism, but with many other physiological functions, such as anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and antiangiogenic effects, potentially acting as a carcinogenesis inhibitor. In this review, we aim to describe the relation of vitamin D with malignant diseases, mainly CRC, as well as to highlight the results of the studies which addressed the potential role of vitamin D in the development and progression of the disease. In addition, we will present the results of the pivotal randomized clinical trials that evaluated the impact of vitamin D supplementation on the clinical outcomes of patients with CRC.

Fluorouracil Bolus Use in Infusional Regimens Among Oncologists-A Survey by Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumors.

PURPOSE: The utility of administering fluorouracil (5-FU) in bolus in regimens of infusional 5-FU has been questioned. We aimed to quantify the use of 5-FU bolus in infusional regimens for gastrointestinal malignancies among Brazilian oncologists. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional electronic survey composed of eight multiple-choice questions sent to Brazilian oncologists during 14 days in February 2021. The survey instrument collected demographic data of participants and assessed practices in terms of 5-FU bolus use. We evaluated the association of demographic variables and 5-FU prescribing patterns with Fisher's exact test (odds ratio [OR]). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 332 medical oncologists. Overall, 37% were experienced oncologists and 32% were gastrointestinal specialists. In the first-line metastatic and in the adjuvant settings, 40% and 67% of oncologists always prescribe 5-FU bolus in infusional regimens, respectively. Experienced oncologists more frequently omit 5-FU bolus when compared with early-career oncologists, both in the metastatic (41% v 26%; OR, 1.98; P = .005) and adjuvant settings (28% v 14%; OR, 2.32; P = .003). In addition, more GI specialists remove 5-FU bolus when compared with generalists, but only in the metastatic setting (44% v 25%; OR, 2.33; P = .001). GI specialists are more likely to consider that treatment efficacy is not affected by 5-FU bolus withdrawal than are generalists (89% v 75%; OR, 2.65; P = .003). Most respondents (67%) keep leucovorin at the same doses when omitting 5-FU bolus, and only 16% always recommend dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase testing. CONCLUSION: Our survey indicates that experience in oncology practice and percentage of time dedicated to treat GI cancers influence the prescription of 5-FU bolus in Brazil, with more frequent omission of it among experienced gastrointestinal specialists, particularly in the metastatic setting.

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.

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.