[Perioperative anemia management: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

Perioperative transfusion and the prognosis of colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Perioperative transfusion can reduce the survival rate in colorectal cancer patients. The effects of transfusion on the short- and long-term prognoses are becoming intriguing.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to define the effects of perioperative transfusion on the short- and long-term prognoses of colorectal cancer surgery.

Results

Thirty-six clinical observational studies, with a total of 174,036 patients, were included. Perioperative transfusion decreased overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.24 to 0.41; P < 0.0001) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.47; P < 0.0001), but had no effect on disease-free survival (DFS) (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, − 0.12 to 0.47; P = 0.248). Transfusion could increase postoperative infectious complications (RR, 1.89, 95% CI, 1.56 to 2.28; P < 0.0001), pulmonary complications (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.54 to 2.63; P < 0.0001), cardiac complications (RR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.75 to 2.76; P < 0.0001), anastomotic complications (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.79; P < 0.0001), reoperation(RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.05 to 4.05; P < 0.0001), and general complications (RR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.66 to 2.07; P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Perioperative transfusion causes a dramatically negative effect on long-term prognosis and increases short-term complications after colorectal cancer surgery.

User testing of an adaptation of fishbone diagrams to depict results of systematic reviews

Background

Summary of findings tables in systematic reviews are highly informative but require epidemiological training to be interpreted correctly. The usage of fishbone diagrams as graphical displays could offer researchers an effective approach to simplify content for readers with limited epidemiological training. In this paper we demonstrate how fishbone diagrams can be applied to systematic reviews and present the results of an initial user testing.

Methods

Findings from two systematic reviews were graphically depicted in the form of the fishbone diagram. To test the utility of fishbone diagrams compared with summary of findings tables, we developed and pilot-tested an online survey using Qualtrics. Respondents were randomized to the fishbone diagram or a summary of findings table presenting the same body of evidence. They answered questions in both open-ended and closed-answer formats; all responses were anonymous. Measures of interest focused on first and second impressions, the ability to find and interpret critical information, as well as user experience with both displays. We asked respondents about the perceived utility of fishbone diagrams compared to summary of findings tables. We analyzed quantitative data by conducting t-tests and comparing descriptive statistics.

Results

Based on real world systematic reviews, we provide two different fishbone diagrams to show how they might be used to display complex information in a clear and succinct manner. User testing on 77 students with basic epidemiological training revealed that participants preferred summary of findings tables over fishbone diagrams. Significantly more participants liked the summary of findings table than the fishbone diagram (71.8% vs. 44.8%; p < .01); significantly more participants found the fishbone diagram confusing (63.2% vs. 35.9%, p < .05) or indicated that it was difficult to find information (65.8% vs. 45%; p < .01). However, more than half of the participants in both groups were unable to find critical information and answer three respective questions correctly (52.6% in the fishbone group; 51.3% in the summary of findings group).

Conclusions

Fishbone diagrams are compact visualizations that, theoretically, may prove useful for summarizing the findings of systematic reviews. Initial user testing, however, did not support the utility of such graphical displays.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0452-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Position paper on management of iron deficiency in adult cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Disorders of iron metabolism are commonly seen in onco-hematological clinical practice. Iron-deficiency anemia and cancer-associated anemia are usually treated with supportive therapies. Optimal management of these conditions are discussed in this perspective paper. Areas covered: A position paper discussing a number of hot topics on anemia in cancer patients is presented. The main areas covered by experts in the field are: definitions, prevalence and consequences of anemia and iron deficiency, incidence of anemia resulting from targeted therapies, importance of anemia diagnosis and monitoring, evaluation of iron status before and during treatment, role of transfusions and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, management of iron deficiency with or without anemia, parenteral iron supplementation, role of new oral iron formulations, safety and cost issues regarding different iron compounds and administration routes. Expert commentary: Despite the availability of newer therapeutic options for its management, anemia still represents a major complication of treatment in cancer patients (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapies), aggravating physical impairment, and negatively affecting general outcome. The view expressed by the panelists, attendees of the 4th Mediterranean Course on Iron Anemia, summarizes what they consider optimal clinical practice for screening, diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of iron deficiency and anemia in cancer patients.