PURPOSE There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally. METHODS This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented. RESULTS Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%). CONCLUSION The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

Aims To identify, systematically evaluate and summarise the best available evidence on the frequency of long COVID‐19 (post‐acute COVID‐19 syndrome), its clinical manifestations, and the criteria used for diagnosis. Methods Systematic review conducted with a comprehensive search including formal databases, COVID‐19 or SARS‐CoV‐2 data sources, grey literature, and manual search. We considered for inclusion clinical trials, observational longitudinal comparative and non‐comparative studies, cross‐sectional, before‐and‐after, and case series. We assessed the methodological quality by specific tools based on the study designs. We presented the results as a narrative synthesis regarding the frequency and duration of long COVID‐19, signs and symptoms, criteria used for diagnosis, and potential risk factors. Results We included 25 observational studies with moderate to high methodological quality, considering 5440 participants. The frequency of long COVID‐19 ranged from 4.7% to 80%, and the most prevalent signs/symptoms were chest pain (up to 89%), fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 61%), and cough and sputum production (up to 59%). Temporal criteria used to define long COVID‐19 varied from 3 to 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Potentially associated risk factors were old age, female sex, severe clinical status, a high number of comorbidities, hospital admission, and oxygen supplementation at the acute phase. However, limitations related to study designs added uncertainty to this finding. None of the studies assessed the duration of signs/symptoms. Conclusion The frequency of long COVID‐19 reached up to 80% over the studies included and occurred between 3 and 24 weeks after acute phase or hospital discharge. Chest pain, fatigue, dyspnea, and cough were the most reported clinical manifestations attributed to the condition. Based on these systematic review findings, there is an urgent need to understand this emerging, complex and challenging medical condition. Proposals for diagnostic criteria and standard terminology are welcome.

No abstract

Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with third-generation drugs for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BackgroundAcne vulgaris, a chronic inflammatory disease of the pilosebaceous unit associated with socialisation and mental health problems, may a ect more than 80% of teenagers. Isotretinoin is widely recognised as a very e ective treatment for severe acne; however, it may cause adverse e ects. ObjectivesTo assess e icacy and safety of oral isotretinoin for acne vulgaris. Search methodsWe searched the following databases up to July 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and LILACS. We updated this search in March 2018, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We also searched five trial registries, checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for further references to relevant trials, and handsearched dermatology conference proceedings. A separate search for adverse e ects of oral isotretinoin was undertaken in MEDLINE and Embase up to September 2013. Selection criteriaRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) of oral isotretinoin in participants with clinically diagnosed acne compared against placebo, any other systemic or topical active therapy, and itself in di erent formulation, doses, regimens, or course duration. Data collection and analysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main resultsWe included 31 RCTs, involving 3836 participants (12 to 55 years) with mild to severe acne. There were twice as many male participants as females.Most studies were undertaken in Asia, Europe, and North America. Outcomes were generally measured between eight to 32 weeks (mean 19.7) of therapy.

Based on existing evidence from two randomised clinical trials, it is not possible to make definitive conclusions on the benefits and risks of breast surgery associated with systemic treatment for women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Until the ongoing clinical trials are finalised, the decision to perform breast surgery in these women should be individualised and shared between the physician and the patient considering the potential risks, benefits, and costs of each intervention.

A better understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus behavior and possible risk factors implicated in poor outcome has become an urgent need. We performed a systematic review in order to investigate a possible association between body weight and prognosis among patients diagnosed with COVID-19. We searched in Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, WHO-Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, OpenGrey, and Medrxiv. We used the ROBINS-I tool or Cross-Sectional/Prevalence Study Quality tool from AHRQ, to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. Nine studies (two prospective cohorts, four retrospective cohorts and three cross-sectional) were included and assessed the relationship between obesity and COVID-19 prognosis. Risk of bias of the included studies ranged from moderate to critical. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity among them precluded meta-analyses. Most of the included studies showed some degree of association to: (a) higher BMI and worse clinical presentation and (b) obesity and need of hospitalization. The results were inconsistent about the impact of obesity on mortality. Based on limited methodological quality studies, obesity seems to predict poor clinical evolution in patients with COVID-19. Further studies with appropriate prospective design are needed to reduce the uncertainty on this evidence.

Background The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group’s Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde [BVS]) using the search terms “nipple sparing mastectomy” and “areola-sparing mastectomy”. Also, we searched the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared to modified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and meta-analyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane’s risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for non-randomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. Main results We included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSM compared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy ...