Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear. Comparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo Participant-reported fatigue relief The was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Comparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil) Participant-reported fatigue relief There was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events There were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Quality of lIfe One study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF. We included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.

Systemic therapies for preventing or treating aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) improve survival compared to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive stage I to III breast cancer. In approximately half of these women, AI are associated with aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS), often described as symmetrical pain and soreness in the joints, musculoskeletal pain and joint stiffness. AIMSS may have significant and prolonged impact on women's quality of life. AIMSS reduces adherence to AI therapy in up to a half of women, potentially compromising breast cancer outcomes. Differing systemic therapies have been investigated for the prevention and treatment of AIMSS, but the effectiveness of these therapies remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic therapies on the prevention or management of AIMSS in women with stage I to III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Clinicaltrials.gov registries to September 2020 and the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG) Specialised Register to March 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials that compared systemic therapies to a comparator arm. Systemic therapy interventions included all pharmacological therapies, dietary supplements, and complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). All comparator arms were allowed including placebo or standard of care (or both) with analgesia alone. Published and non-peer-reviewed studies were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes assessed were pain, stiffness, grip strength, safety data, discontinuation of AI, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), breast cancer-specific quality of life (BCS-QoL), incidence of AIMSS, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). For continuous outcomes, we used vote-counting by reporting how many studies reported a clinically significant benefit within the confidence intervals (CI) of the mean difference (MD) between treatment arms, as determined by the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) for that outcome scale. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 2034 randomised participants. Four studies assessed systemic therapies for the prevention of AIMSS and 13 studies investigated treatment of AIMSS. Due to the variation in systemic therapy studies, including pharmacological, and CAM, or unavailable data, meta-analysis was limited, and only two trials were combined for meta-analysis. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was either low or very low certainty. Prevention studies The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of systemic therapies on pain (from baseline to the end of the intervention; 2 studies, 183 women). The two studies, investigating vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids, showed a treatment effect with 95% CIs that did not include an MCID for pain. Systemic therapies may have little to no effect on grip strength (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.17; 1 study, 137 women) or on women continuing to take their AI (RR 0.16, 95% 0.01 to 2.99; 1 study, 147 women). The evidence suggests little to no effect on HRQoL and BCS-QoL from baseline to the end of intervention (the same single study; 44 women, both quality of life outcomes showed a treatment effect with 95% CIs that did include an MCID). The evidence is very uncertain for outcomes assessing incidence of AIMSS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06; 2 studies, 240 women) and the safety of systemic therapies (4 studies, 344 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study had a US Food and Drug Administration alert issued for the intervention (cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor) during the study, but there were no serious adverse events in this or any study. There were no data on stiffness, BCSS or OS. Treatment studies The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of systemic therapies on pain from baseline to the end of intervention in the treatment of AIMSS (10 studies, 1099 women). Four studies showed an MCID in pain scores which fell within the 95% CI of the measured effect (vitamin D, bionic tiger bone, Yi Shen Jian Gu granules, calcitonin). Six studies showed a treatment effect with 95% CI that did not include an MCID (vitamin D, testosterone, omega-3 fatty acids, duloxetine, emu oil, cat's claw).  The evidence was very uncertain for the outcomes of change in stiffness (4 studies, 295 women), HRQoL (3 studies, 208 women) and BCS-QoL (2 studies, 147 women) from baseline to the end of intervention. The evidence suggests systemic therapies may have little to no effect on grip strength (1 study, 107 women). The evidence is very uncertain about the safety of systemic therapies (10 studies, 1250 women). There were no grade four/five adverse events reported in any of the studies. The study of duloxetine reported more all-grade adverse events in this treatment group than comparator group. There were no data on the incidence of AIMSS, the number of women continuing to take AI, BCCS or OS from the treatment studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: AIMSS are chronic and complex symptoms with a significant impact on women with early breast cancer taking AI. To date, evidence for safe and effective systemic therapies for prevention or treatment of AIMSS has been minimal. Although this review identified 17 studies with 2034 randomised participants, the review was challenging due to the heterogeneous systemic therapy interventions and study methodologies, and the unavailability of certain trial data. Meta-analysis was thus limited and findings of the review were inconclusive. Further research is recommended into systemic therapy for AIMSS, including high-quality adequately powered RCT, comprehensive descriptions of the intervention/placebo, and robust definitions of the condition and the outcomes being studied.

Discerning the Role of Autoimmunity and Autoantibodies in Epilepsy: A Review.

Importance: The literature on neural autoantibody positivity in epilepsy has expanded over the last decade, with an increased interest among clinicians in identifying potentially treatable causes of otherwise refractory seizures. Observations: Prior studies have reported a wide range of neural autoantibody positivity rates among various epilepsy populations, with the highest frequency reported in individuals with focal epilepsy of unknown cause and new-onset seizures. The antibodies in some cases are of uncertain significance, and their presence can cause conundrums regarding therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: There is likely some role for neural autoantibody assessment in patients with unexplained epilepsy who lack clear evidence of autoimmune encephalitis, but the clinical implications of such testing remain unclear owing to limitations in previous published studies. A framework for study design to bridge the current gaps in knowledge on autoimmune-associated epilepsy is proposed.

Practice review: Evidence-based quality use of corticosteroids in the palliative care of patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: It would be unusual for a patient with advanced cancer not to be prescribed corticosteroids at some stage of their disease course for a variety of specific and non-specific indications. AIM: The aim of this practice review was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting current practice and to identify areas in which further research is indicated. DESIGN: A 'state-of-the-art' review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related complications and in symptom control, in the context of known risks and harms to inform quality use of this medicine. We developed 'Do', 'Do not', and 'Don't know' recommendations based on current literature and identified areas for future investigation and research. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from inception to 14th October 2020. Our initial search limited to reviews, reviews of reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials was supplemented by supporting literature as appropriate. RESULTS: Evidence to support common practice in the use of corticosteroids is lacking for most indications. This is in the context of strong evidence for the potential for significant toxicity and poor quality use of medicine. CONCLUSION: Guidelines recommending the widespread use of corticosteroids should acknowledge the poor evidence base supporting much current dogma. Quality research is essential not only to define the role of corticosteroids in this context but to ensure good prescribing practice.

Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Searching for studies to include in a systematic review (SR) is a time- and labor-intensive process with searches of multiple databases recommended. To reduce the time spent translating search strings across databases, a tool called the Polyglot Search Translator (PST) was developed. The authors evaluated whether using the PST as a search translation aid reduces the time required to translate search strings without increasing errors. METHODS: In a randomized trial, twenty participants were randomly allocated ten database search strings and then randomly assigned to translate five with the assistance of the PST (PST-A method) and five without the assistance of the PST (manual method). We compared the time taken to translate search strings, the number of errors made, and how close the number of references retrieved by a translated search was to the number retrieved by a reference standard translation. RESULTS: Sixteen participants performed 174 translations using the PST-A method and 192 translations using the manual method. The mean time taken to translate a search string with the PST-A method was 31 minutes versus 45 minutes by the manual method (mean difference: 14 minutes). The mean number of errors made per translation by the PST-A method was 8.6 versus 14.6 by the manual method. Large variation in the number of references retrieved makes results for this outcome inconclusive, although the number of references retrieved by the PST-A method was closer to the reference standard translation than the manual method. CONCLUSION: When used to assist with translating search strings across databases, the PST can increase the speed of translation without increasing errors. Errors in search translations can still be a problem, and search specialists should be aware of this.

Exercise therapies for preventing or treating aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survival for stage I to III, hormone receptor-positive, breast cancer has substantially improved over time due to advances in screening, surgery and adjuvant therapy. However many adjuvant therapies have significant treatment-related toxicities, which worsen quality of life for breast cancer survivors. Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer are now prescribed aromatase inhibitors (AI) as standard, with longer durations of therapy, up to 10 years, being considered for certain women. AI treatment is associated with a high incidence of AI-induced musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS), often described as symmetrical pain and soreness in the joints, musculoskeletal pain and joint stiffness. AIMSS reduces compliance with AI therapy in up to one half of women undergoing adjuvant AI therapy, potentially compromising breast cancer outcomes. Exercise has been investigated for the prevention and treatment of AIMSS but the effect of this intervention remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of exercise therapies on the prevention or management of aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS) in women with stage I to III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases up to 13 December 2018. We also searched two conference proceedings portals and two clinical trials registries for ongoing studies or unpublished trials, or both, in August 2019. We also reviewed reference lists of the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise versus a comparator arm. We did not impose any restriction on the comparator arm, which could include an alternative type of exercise, no exercise or a waiting list control. Both published and non-peer-reviewed studies were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes investigated were pain, joint stiffness, grip strength, health-related quality of life, cancer-specific quality of life, adherence to AI therapy, adverse events, incidence of AIMSS, breast cancer-specific survival and overall survival. For continuous outcomes that were assessed with the same instrument, we used the mean difference (MD); for those outcomes that used different instruments, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD) for the analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported outcomes as an odds ratio (OR). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies with 400 randomised participants; one study assessed exercise for preventing AIMSS and six studies assessed treating AIMSS. For preventing AIMSS, the single study reported no difference in pain scores, grip strength or compliance to taking AI medication between groups. Data values were not provided in the study and no other outcomes were reported. For managing AIMSS, we found that the evidence for the effect of exercise therapies on overall change in worst pain scores was very uncertain (SMD -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.78 to 0.32; 4 studies, 284 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggested that exercise therapies result in little to no difference in overall change in stiffness scores (Western Ontario McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) stiffness score MD -0.76, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.15 and Visual Analogues Scale (VAS) stiffness score MD -0.42, 95% CI -2.10 to 1.26; 1 study, 53 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the outcomes of overall change in grip strength (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to 1.15; 1 study, 83 women; very low-certainty evidence); overall change in health-related quality of life (subscales of SF-36 tool ranged from least benefit of MD 1.88, 95% CI -2.69 to 6.45 to most benefit of MD 9.70, 95% CI 1.67 to 17.73; 2 studies, 123 women, very low-certainty evidence); overall change in cancer-specific quality of life (MD 4.58, 95% CI -0.61 to 9.78; 2 studies, 136 women; very low-certainty evidence); and adherence to aromatase inhibitors (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.41 to 14.63; 2 studies, 224 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no adverse events identified across four studies in either arm (0 events reported; 4 studies; 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data reported on incidence of AIMSS, breast cancer-specific survival or overall survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the wide-ranging benefits of exercise for people affected by cancer, it was surprising that this review provided no clear evidence of benefit for exercise therapies in women with early breast cancer with AIMSS. This review only yielded seven eligible studies with 400 participants, which is likely to have underpowered the findings. The meta-analysis was challenging due to the considerable heterogeneity amongst the trials, with a wide range of exercise regimens and follow-up periods. Despite these inconclusive findings, exercise needs to be part of routine care for women with breast cancer due to its wide-ranging benefits. Future research in this area would be enhanced with further understanding of the mechanism of AIMSS, a single clear definition of the condition, and phase III randomised controlled trials that are adequately powered to test targeted exercise interventions on the key clinical outcomes in this condition.

Systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnoea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70% among patients at end of life. The cause of dyspnoea is often multifactorial, and may cause considerable psychological distress and suffering. Dyspnoea is often undertreated and good symptom control is less frequently achieved in people with dyspnoea than in people with other symptoms of advanced cancer, such as pain and nausea. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids in managing dyspnoea is unclear, yet corticosteroids are commonly used in palliative care for a variety of non-specific indications, including pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue and low mood, despite being associated with a wide range of adverse effects. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of the effects of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related dyspnoea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and clinical trial registries, from inception to 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that included adults aged 18 years and above. We included participants with cancer-related dyspnoea when randomised to systemic corticosteroids (at any dose) administered for the relief of cancer-related dyspnoea or any other indication, compared to placebo, standard or alternative treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently assessed trial quality and three extracted data. We used means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence using GRADE. We extracted primary outcomes of sensory-perceptual experience of dyspnoea (intensity of dyspnoea), affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) and secondary outcomes of serious adverse events, participant satisfaction with treatment and participant withdrawal from trial. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 157 participants (37 participants in one study and 120 in the other study), of whom 114 were included in the analyses. The studies compared oral dexamethasone to placebo, followed by an open-label phase in one study. One study lasted seven days, and the duration of the other study was 15 days.We were unable to conduct many of our predetermined analyses due to different agents, dosages, comparators and outcome measures, routes of drug delivery, measurement scales and time points. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible.Primary outcomesWe included two studies (114 participants) with data at one week in the meta-analysis for change in dyspnoea intensity/dyspnoea relief from baseline. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in an MD of lower dyspnoea intensity compared to placebo at one week (MD -0.85 lower dyspnoea (scale 0-10; lower score = less breathlessness), 95% CI -1.73 to 0.03; very low-quality evidence), although we were uncertain as to whether corticosteroids had an important effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels from high to very low due to very serious study limitations and imprecision.One study measured affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and results were similar between groups (29 participants; very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Both studies assessed symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) (113 participants; very low-quality evidence). In one study, it was unclear whether dexamethasone had an effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. The second study showed more improvement for physical well-being scores at days eight and 15 in the dexamethasone group compared with the control group, but there was no evidence of a difference for FACIT social/family, emotional or functional scales. We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Secondary outcomesDue to the lack of homogenous outcome measures and inconsistency in reporting, we could not perform quantitative analysis for any secondary outcomes. In both studies, the frequency of adverse events was similar between groups, and corticosteroids were generally well tolerated. The withdrawal rates for the two studies were 15% and 36%. Reasons for withdrawal included lost to follow-up, participant or carer (or both) refusal, and death due to disease progression. We downgraded the quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes by three levels from high to very low due to serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.Neither study examined participant satisfaction with treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies assessing the effects of systemic corticosteroids on cancer-related dyspnoea in adults with cancer. We judged the evidence to be of very low quality that neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this population. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of mindfulness based interventions and yoga in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness interventions are increasingly used as a part of integrated treatment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) but there are limited data and a lack of consensus regarding effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: We explored the efficacy of mindfulness interventions compared to treatment as usual (TAU), or other psychotherapeutic interventions, in treating physical and psychosocial symptoms associated with IBD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included a broad range of mindfulness interventions including mindfulness-based interventions and yoga, with no restrictions on date of publication, participants' age, language or publication type. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and WHO ICTRP database. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines in conducting the review. RESULTS: We included eight studies in the meta-analysis. Mindfulness interventions showed a statistically significant effect on stress in both the short(SMD = -0.48; 95%CI:-0.97, 0.00; P = .05), and long term(SMD = -0.55; 95%CI:-0.78, -0.32; P < .00001), significant long term effects on depression (SMD = -0.36; 95%CI:-0.66, -0.07; P = .02) and quality of life (SMD = 0.38; 95%CI:0.08, 0.68; P = .01),and small but not statistically significant improvements in anxiety (SMD = -0.27; 95%CI:-0.65, 0.11; P = .16).Effects on physical outcomes were equivocal and not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Mindfulness interventions are effective in reducing stress and depression and improving quality of life and anxiety, but do not lead to significant improvements in the physical symptoms of IBD. Further research involving IBD-tailored interventions and more rigorously designed trials is warranted.

Corticosteroids for adult patients with advanced cancer who have nausea and vomiting (not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery).

BACKGROUND: Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Management of aromatase inhibitor induced musculoskeletal symptoms in postmenopausal early Breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aromatase Inhibitors (AI) are widely used for the adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor positive breast cancers in the post-menopausal population. AI are often associated with significant joint and muscular symptoms; symptoms that are commonly referred to as aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS). AIMSS adversely impacts health-related quality of life of many patients, and reduces AI compliance. Although there are informal practice recommendations, the limited current level of evidence for management of AIMSS for breast cancer patients on aromatase inhibitors has made development of formal guidelines challenging, and remains an unmet need. This is the first systematic review to consider the evidence for all pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in the treatment of AIMSS, including physical therapy, acupuncture and complementary therapies.

Mucinous ovarian cancer: A therapeutic review.

Mucinous ovarian cancer represents approximately 3% of epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC). Despite this seemingly low prevalence, it remains a diagnostic and therapeutic conundrum that has resulted in numerous attempts to adopt novel strategies in managing this disease. Anecdotally, there has been a prevailing notion that established gold standard systemic regimens should be substituted for those utilised in cancers such as gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies; tumours that share more biological similarities than other EOC subtypes. This review summarises the plethora of small studies which have adopted this philosophy and influenced the design of the multinational GOG142 study, which was ultimately terminated due to poor accrual. To date, there is a paucity of evidence to support delivering 'GI style' chemotherapy for mucinous ovarian cancer over and above carboplatin-paclitaxel doublet therapy. Hence there is an urge to develop studies focused on targeted therapeutic agents driven by refined mutational analysis and conducted within the context of harmonised international collaborations.

Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: One of the most feared symptoms associated with cancer is pain. Opioids remain the mainstay of pain treatment but corticosteroids are often used concurrently as co- or adjuvant analgesics. Due to their anti-inflammatory mechanism of action, corticosteroids are said to provide effective analgesia for pain associated with inflammation and in the management of cancer-related complications such as brain metastasis and spinal cord compression. However, corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroids in treating cancer-related pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (OVID) (1966 to 29 September 2014), EMBASE (OVID) (1970 to 29 September 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 29 September 2014), Science Citation Index (Web of Science) (1899 to 29 September 2014) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science) (1990 to 29 September 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised or prospective controlled trial that included patients over 18 years with cancer-related pain were eligible for the review. Corticosteroids were compared to placebo or usual treatment and/or supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 1926 participants. The trial size varied from 20 to 598 patients. Most studies compared corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, to standard therapy. We included six studies with data at one week in the meta-analysis for pain intensity; no data were available at that time point for the remaining studies. Corticosteroid therapy resulted in less pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with a lower score indicating less pain) compared to control at one week (MD 0.84 lower pain, 95% CI 1.38 to 0.30 lower; low quality evidence). Adverse events were poorly documented. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of pain and the use of different agents, dosages, comparisons and routes of drug delivery. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible. The quality of this evidence was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and small sample size. The results were also compromised by attrition, with data missing for the enrolled patients. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids for pain control in cancer patients is weak. Significant pain relief was noted in some studies, albeit only for a short period of time. This could be important for patients with poor clinical status. Further trials, with increased numbers of participants, are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of corticosteroids for the management cancer pain in adults, and to establish an ideal dose, duration of therapy and route of administration.