Metastatic colorectal cancer: treatment with panitumumab

Abstract

This guideline followed the standard of a systematic review with evidence recovery based on the Evidence-Based Medicine movement, where clinical experience is integrated with the ability to critically analyse and rationally apply scientific information, thus improving the quality of medical care. MBE uses existing and currently available scientific evidence with good internal and external validity for the application of its results in clinical practice. 1,2 Systematic reviews are currently considered the level I of evidence for any clinical issue since they systematically summarize information on a particular topic through primary studies (clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control or cross-sectional studies) using a reproducible methodology, in addition to integrating information on effectiveness, efficiency, efficacy and safety. 1,2 We used the structured way of formulating the question synthesized by the acronym P.I.C.O., where the P corresponds to the patient with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer, I for intervention with Chemotherapy with panitumumab, C for comparison of Chemotherapy without panitumumab and placebo, and O for outcome of survival and adverse events. From the structured question, we have identified the descriptors that were the basis of the search for evidence in the databases Medline-PubMed (595 papers) GUIDELINES IN FOCUS The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment

“…After filtering through reviews of titles and abstracts, 63 records were appraised for eligibility. Finally, 59 guidelines were included (45 CPGs [30–88] and 14 CSs [42, 44–46, 49, 56–58, 67, 75, 80, 83, 86, 88]) for the final full‐text appraisal (Table 1). Seven CPGs and no CSs (11.9%) were in French [37–40], Slovenian [77], Norwegian [68] and Croatian [82]; a total of 52/59 (88.1%) documents were in English.…”