Much debate has focused on whether antioxidants interfere with the efficacy of cancer chemotherapy. The objective of this study is to systematically review the randomized, controlled clinical trial evidence evaluating the effects of concurrent use of antioxidants with chemotherapy on toxic side effects. We performed a search of literature from 1966‐October 2007 using MEDLINE, Cochrane, CinAhl, AMED, AltHealthWatch and EMBASE databases. Randomized, controlled clinical trials reporting antioxidant‐based mitigation of chemotherapy toxicity were included in the final tally. Searches were performed following a standardized protocol for systematic reviews. Only 33 of 965 articles considered, including 2,446 subjects, met the inclusion criteria. Antioxidants evaluated were: glutathione (11), melatonin (7), vitamin A (1), an antioxidant mixture (2), N‐acetylcysteine (2), vitamin E (5), selenium (2), L‐carnitine (1), Co‐Q10 (1) and ellagic acid (1). The majority (24) of the 33 studies included reported evidence of decreased toxicities from the concurrent use of antioxidants with chemotherapy. Nine studies reported no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups. Only 1 study (vitamin A) reported a significant increase in toxicity in the antioxidant group. Five studies reported the antioxidant group completed more full doses of chemotherapy or had less‐dose reduction than control groups. Statistical power and poor study quality were concerns with some studies. This review provides the first systematically reviewed evidence that antioxidant supplementation during chemotherapy holds potential for reducing dose‐limiting toxicities. However, well‐designed studies evaluating larger populations of patients given specific antioxidants defined by dose and schedule relative to chemotherapy are warranted. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

No abstract

Dolastatin-10 is inactive against hepatobiliary and pancreatic carcinomas.

Practical circadian therapy for the cancer patient involves 3 spheres of intervention-improving lifestyle, optimizing internal biochemical milieu, and adjusting treatment times. The potential value of improving overall circadian functioning is shown in the work of Mormont et al in which pronounced rest-activity rhythms were associated with better survival in colorectal cancer patients receiving chronomodulated chemotherapy. Lifestyle interventions that may improve circadian functioning involve diet, physical activity, and mind-body therapies. A diet that is anti-inflammatory and has appropriate carbohydrate intake, as well as regular meal timing, encourages normal circadian cycles. Adequate daytime physical activity encourages restful sleep, and morning light exposure during exercise may entrain melatonin rhythms. Meditation and other mind-body therapies can reduce anxiety and depression that may disrupt sleep. Aspects of the biochemical milieu that specifically disrupt circadian functioning are inflammation and stress hormones. Inflammation and cytokine disruption can be addressed with diet, herbs, and other natural substances. Chronomodulation of chemotherapy in a US clinical setting will be discussed. A series of 12 cases will be presented of patients who experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicities with various chemotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer. When rechallenged with the same regimens administered chronotherapeutically, none of the patients experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicity. Integrating all the above treatment modalities has the potential to improve both the quality of life and disease outcomes in cancer patients.

ImportanceCancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed.ObjectiveTo assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsAccredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022.ExposuresCollaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods.ResultsOf 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, −13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, −23.1 to −3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.