The mean prevalence of azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (MP)-induced liver injury in patients with inflammatory bowel disease was approximately 3%, and the mean annual drug-induced liver disorder rate was only 1.4%. However, this low figure calculated from retrospective studies contrasts with a much higher incidence (>10%) reported by a prospective study. Thiopurine-induced hepatotoxicity can be grouped into three syndromes: hypersensitivity, idiosyncratic cholestatic reaction, and endothelial cell injury (with resultant raised portal pressures, veno-occlusive disease, or peliosis hepatis). A small percentage of patients present with a slight elevation of liver tests (LTs) that do not have clinical implications and LTs return to normal values during the follow-up, indicating that it is not always necessary to adjust the dose of the immunomodulator. However, when abnormalities in LTs are more marked, the dose of AZA/MP may be reduced 50%, with posterior clinical and analytical controls. With this strategy, LTs frequently normalize spontaneously, and the initial AZA/MP dose may be cautiously prescribed again. Thiopurines may induce an unusual severe cholestatic jaundice that may not regress but even progress despite thiopurine withdrawal. Therefore, these drugs should be completely withdrawn, and not only tapered, in those patients presenting clinically significant jaundice. Despite a lack of evidence that monitoring of LTs is necessary in patients receiving AZA/MP, routinely performed laboratory controls including LTs seem recommendable. However, the optimal monitoring schedule remains to be established. As long-term hepatotoxicity seems to be an unpredictable and potentially severe adverse drug reaction of 6-thioguanine, this drug should not be administered outside a clinical trial setting. (Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1518-527).

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and cetuximab in the treatment of individuals with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

Preoperative systemic chemotherapy is increasingly used in patients who undergo hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Although chemotherapy-related hepatic injury has been reported, the incidence and the effect of such injury on patient outcome remain ill defined.

The development of neurotoxicity during antineoplastic therapy is one of the most common reasons for termination or modification of cancer treatment. A number of different agents have been proposed to provide neuroprotection without affecting antitumor efficacy. This review provides an evidence-based summary of neuroprotective medicines, an overview of the literature relating to neuroprotection during cancer treatment and a Neurologist perspective risk assessment and management. Through a systematic review the authors identified 49 papers published to date that report human clinical trials involving potential neuroprotectants in adults. Case reports and series completed in a prospective fashion were also included. Sensory neuropathies were the most prevalent subtype in the literature, and most were at least partially reversible with or without neuroprotective treatment. The majority of study medications had minimal side effects, though 2 trials were prematurely terminated because of adverse patient outcomes. No study reported an effect on antitumor efficacy. Because of the variability in study design, cancer type, outcome measures, and clinical confirmation of neuropathy, meta-analysis could not be appropriately performed. We highlight risk factors and discuss neuropathy screening. Descriptive analysis is provided which reveals that many of the agents studied were likely to confer some at least some neuroprotective benefit.

Animal models of experimental liver carcinogenesis and epidemiological studies in humans suggest a relationship between sex hormones and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In 1997, a systematic review of the existing, small randomized trials evaluating the antiestrogen tamoxifen yielded a positive result, but the large randomized CLIP-1 trial showed no survival advantage from the addition of tamoxifen to best supportive care. A possible explanation for the negative results is the lack of patient selection, but the expression of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors in HCC does not clearly affect the survival outcome of the patients treated with tamoxifen. In the last years, it has been proposed that negative results might be due to the fact that tamoxifen in HCC could act via an ER-independent pathway, which requires much higher doses than those usually administered, but a double-blind Asian randomized trial conducted to assess possible dose-response effect showed no efficacy for tamoxifen, with an inversely negative impact with increasing dose. According to the results of large trials and of the Cochrane systematic review, neither further trials are warranted with tamoxifen in HCC, nor should any use in clinical practice be considered. Interesting results have been obtained when the type of hormonal treatment (tamoxifen or megestrol) has been chosen according to the presence of wild-type or variant ER, but these results should be confirmed in large randomized trials. Negative results have been obtained with antiandrogen therapy. In conclusion, hormonal treatment should not be a part of the current management of HCC patients.

Cisplatin and several related antineoplastic agents used to treat many types of solid tumors are neurotoxic, and most patients completing a full course of cisplatin chemotherapy develop a clinically detectable sensory neuropathy. Effective neuroprotective therapies have been sought.

Anaemia is frequently diagnosed in patients with cancer, and may have a detrimental effect on quality of life (QoL). We previously conducted a systematic literature review (1996-2003) to produce evidence-based guidelines on the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer.[Bokemeyer C, Aapro MS, Courdi A, et al. EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:2201-2216.] We report here an update to these guidelines, including literature published through to November 2005. The results of this updated systematic literature review have enabled us to refine our guidelines based on the full body of data currently available. Level I evidence exists for a positive impact of erythropoietic proteins on haemoglobin (Hb) levels when administered to patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease, when used to prevent cancer anaemia, and in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The addition of further Level I studies confirms our recommendation that in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be initiated at a Hb level of 9-11 g/dL based on anaemia-related symptoms rather than a fixed Hb concentration. Early intervention with erythropoietic proteins may be considered in asymptomatic anaemic patients with Hb levels 11.9 g/dL provided that individual factors like intensity and expected duration of chemotherapy are considered. Patients whose Hb level is below 9 g/dL should primarily be evaluated for need of transfusions potentially followed by the application of erythropoietic proteins. We do not recommend the prophylactic use of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy who have normal Hb levels at the start of treatment, as the literature has not shown a benefit with this approach. The addition of further supporting studies confirms our recommendation that the target Hb concentration following treatment with erythropoietic proteins should be 12-13 g/dL. Once this level is achieved, maintenance doses should be titrated individually. There is Level I evidence that dosing of erythropoietic proteins less frequently than three times per week is efficacious when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia, with studies supporting the use of epoetin alfa and epoetin beta weekly and darbepoetin alfa given every week or every 3 weeks. We do not recommend the use of higher than standard initial doses of erythropoietic proteins with the aim of producing higher haematological responses, due to the limited body of evidence available. There is Level I evidence that, within reasonable limits of body weight, fixed doses of erythropoietic proteins can be used to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia. This analysis confirms that there are no baseline predictive factors of response to erythropoietic proteins that can be routinely used in clinical practice if functional iron deficiency or vitamin deficiency is ruled out; a low serum erythropoietin (EPO) level (only in haematological malignancies) appears to be the only predictive factor to be verified in Level I studies. Further studies are needed to investigate the value of hepcidin, c-reactive protein, and other measures as predictive factors. In these updated guidelines, we explored a new question of whether oral or intravenous iron supplementation increases the response rate to erythropoietic proteins. We found no evidence of increased response with the addition of oral iron supplementation, but there is Level II evidence of improved response to erythropoietic proteins with the addition of intravenous iron. However, the doses and schedules for intravenous iron supplementation are not yet well defined, and further studies in this area are warranted. The two major goals of erythropoietic protein therapy are prevention or elimination of transfusions and improvement of QoL. The total body of evidence shows that red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements are reduced following treatment with erythropoietic proteins. This analysis also confirms that QoL is significantly improved in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia and in those with anaemia of chronic disease following erythropoietic protein therapy, with more robust evidence now available that QoL was improved in studies investigating early intervention in cases of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced anaemia. There is only indirect evidence that patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease initially classified as non-responders to standard doses proceed to respond to treatment following a dose increase. None of the studies addressed the question in a prospective, randomised fashion, and so the Taskforce does not recommend dose escalation as a general approach in all patients who are not responding. There is still insufficient data to determine the effect on survival following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Our analysis of survival endpoints in studies involving patients receiving radio(chemo)therapy found that most studies were inconclusive, with no clear link between the use of erythropoietic proteins and survival. Likewise, we found no clear link between erythropoietic therapy and other endpoints such as local tumour control, time to progression, and progression-free survival. There is no evidence that pure red cell aplasia occurs in cancer patients following treatment with erythropoietic proteins, and the fear of this condition developing should not lead to erythropoietic proteins being withheld in patients with cancer. There is Level I evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events and hypertension are slightly elevated in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia receiving erythropoietic proteins. Additional trials are warranted, especially to define the optimal doses and schedules of intravenous iron supplementation during erythropoietic therapy. While our review did not address cost benefit evaluations in detail, the consensus is that studies taking into account all real determinants of cost and benefit need to be performed prospectively.

It is thought that the incidence and severity of cancer chemotherapy-associated mucositis is caused in part by changes in the oral bacterial microflora. This systematic review examined the role of oral bacterial microflora changes in the development of oral mucositis during chemotherapy. Thirteen prospective clinical trials were identified, involving 300 patients with 13 different cancer diagnoses. There was great variability in patient populations, bacterial sample collection methodology, and oral sample sites. No clear pattern regarding qualitative and quantitative oral flora changes emerged among these studies. The most frequent Gram-negative species isolated during chemotherapy were from the Enterobacteriaceae family, Pseudomonas sp. and E. coli. The most common Gram-positive species isolated were Staphylococcus sp. and Streptococcus sp. Five studies assessed the role of oral flora changes in the genesis of oral mucosal changes, with no consensus among them. More detailed studies are required to understand the relationship between chemotherapy, alterations in the nature and magnitude of the oral microflora, and the presence of mucositis.

Daily chlorhexidine mouthwash is often recommended for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Povidone-iodine, NaCl 0.9%, water salt soda solution and chamomile mouthwash are also recommended. However, the effectiveness of these mouthwashes is unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of mouthwashes in preventing and ameliorating chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Based on study quality, three out of five randomized controlled trials were included in a meta-analysis. The results failed to detect any beneficial effects of chlorhexidine as compared with sterile water, or NaCl 0.9%. Patients complained about negative side-effects of chlorhexidine, including teeth discoloration and alteration of taste in two of the five studies on chlorhexidine. The severity of oral mucositis was shown to be reduced by 30% using a povidone-iodine mouthwash as compared with sterile water in a single randomized controlled trial. These results do not support the use of chlorhexidine mouthwash to prevent oral mucositis.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy has a limited place in the management of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Commonly used agents include cisplatin and doxorubicin, but the side-effect profile may be unacceptable for many patients. The feasibility of administration of combination chemotherapy is limited in many patients on account of significant co-morbidity. While early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma is a common gynaecological cancer with a favourable prognosis, advanced or recurrent disease presents a difficult management problem. The platinum and anthracycline compounds have been widely used for many years, but their impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is not clear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate both the benefits and adverse effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in these women.

To assess the effect of quinolone prophylaxis following chemotherapy for malignancies on the emergence of resistant bacteria in neutropenic patients.

The use of anthracycline chemotherapy is limited by the occurrence of cardiotoxicity. In an effort to prevent this cardiotoxicity, different anthracycline dosage schedules (i.e. peak doses and infusion durations) have been studied.

The use of anthracycline chemotherapy is limited by the occurrence of cardiotoxicity. In an effort to prevent this cardiotoxicity, different anthracycline derivates have been studied.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in asymptomatic hepatitis B surface antigen carriers undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy is a well-documented and potentially fatal complication. Data supporting the use of lamivudine for primary prophylaxis have emerged, but its use remains controversial and is not standardized.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating proteins (ESPs) are indicated for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews of the management of CIA do not yet include all currently approved ESPs or all of the clinically relevant benefits and risks of ESPs.

Selenium supplements are frequently used by cancer patients. Selenium is an essential trace element and is involved in antioxidant protection and redox-regulation in humans. Several adverse effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in cancer patients as well as cellular processes that maintain chronic lymphoedema have been linked to oxidative cell damage in the human body. Selenium has recently been investigated as a remedy against chemotherapy and radiotherapy-associated side effects as well as its effects on lymphoedema.

Immunosuppressive and cytotoxic agents have been used as both an alternative to oral corticosteroids, and as a means of maintaining a low dose of steroids in the treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis.

The review covers current options for ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation and provides a systematic review of the existing literature from the last 10 years, taking into account all previously published reviews on the subject. The different cryopreservation options available for fertility preservation in cancer patients are embryo cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation and ovarian tissue cryopreservation. The choice depends on various parameters: the type and timing of chemotherapy, the type of cancer, the patient's age and the partner status. The different options and their results are discussed, as well as their putative indications and efficacy. The review concludes that advances in reproductive technology have made fertility preservation techniques a real possibility for patients whose gonadal function is threatened by premature menopause, or by treatments such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy or surgical castration.

This review focuses on the value of several groups of agents for the prevention and treatment of mucositis. The review refers to alimentary mucositis as a generalized term that includes oral mucositis and gastrointestinal mucositis. This paper is part of the systematic review made by the mucositis study group which operates in the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO). Several new guidelines are suggested in this review as an update to the primary systematic review that was published by the same group in 2004.