Background. Many cancer patients receive supplemental ascorbate (vitamin C) in the belief that it synergizes the anticancer effects of chemotherapy and reduces its toxicity. Methods. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the antitumor effects and toxicity of ascorbate treatment. Medline (1946 to March 2014), EMBASE (1947 to March 2014), and the Cochrane central register (1993 to March 2014) were searched for randomized and observational studies. Results. Of 696 identified records, 61 full‐text articles were screened and 34 were included. In total, 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 322), 12 phase I/II trials (n = 287), 6 observational studies (n = 7,599), and 11 case reports (n = 267) were identified. Because of study heterogeneity, no meta‐analyses were performed. No RCTs reported any statistically significant improvements in overall or progression‐free survival or reduced toxicity with ascorbate relative to control arm. Evidence for ascorbate's antitumor effects was limited to case reports and observational and uncontrolled studies. Conclusion. There is no high‐quality evidence to suggest that ascorbate supplementation in cancer patients either enhances the antitumor effects of chemotherapy or reduces its toxicity. Given the high financial and time costs to patients of this treatment, high‐quality placebo‐controlled trials are needed.

Symptoms of urogenital atrophy are common in breast cancer survivors. Its optimal management is currently unknown. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments for urogenital atrophy in breast cancer patients was performed. EMBASE, Ovid Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1946 to November 2014. Outcomes included improvements in both vaginal symptoms (e.g., dryness, pain, dyspareunia and itching) and vaginal hormone response measured by validated scales [e.g., Vaginal Health Index (VHI) and Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI)]. Of 430 unique citations identified, 4 studies (n = 196) met inclusion criteria. Interventions included pH-balanced gel, Replens(®), lidocaine, Estring(®) and Vagifem(®). Sample sizes ranged from 7 to 98 patients. Given the heterogeneity of the studies, a narrative synthesis of results was performed. One study of 98 patients suggested that vaginal pH-balanced gel (mean VHI 5.00 ± 0.816, mean VMI 51.18 ± 3.753) was more efficient than placebo (VHI 16.98 ± 3.875, p < 0.001, VMI 47.87 ± 2.728, p < 0.001) at 12 weeks in providing vaginal symptom relief. In patients who used lidocaine, 90 % had reduced dyspareunia compared to saline in a study of 46 patients. Although increased serum estradiol occurred, both Estring(®) and Vagifem(®) were shown to improve quality of life and VMI in a study of seven patients. Treatment of urogenital atrophy remains a challenging issue and there is a paucity of RCT evidence addressing this knowledge gap. It is evident that more prospective trials are needed.

BackgroundConsensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine’s standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.MethodsConsensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine's standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.FindingsThirty-four consensus statements and 67 clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The rigour of development score for consensus statements over the three journals was 32% lower than that of clinical practice guidelines. The editorial independence score was 15% lower for consensus statements than clinical practice guidelines. One journal scored consistently lower than the others over both domains. No journals adhered to all the items related to the transparency of document development. One journal’s consensus statements endorsed a product made by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company in 64% of cases.ConclusionGuidance documents are an essential part of oncology care and should be subjected to a rigorous and validated development process. Consensus statements had lower methodological quality than clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II. At a minimum, journals should ensure that that all consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines adhere to AGREE II criteria. Journals should consider explicitly requiring guidelines to declare pharmaceutical company sponsorship and to identify the sponsor’s product to enhance transparency.