O.A.C. Clark
State University of Campinas
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by O.A.C. Clark.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2005
O.A.C. Clark; Gary H. Lyman; Aldemar Araújo Castro; Lg Clark; Benjamin Djulbegovic
PURPOSE Current treatment for febrile neutropenia (FN) includes hospitalization for evaluation, empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics, and other supportive care. Clinical trials have reported conflicting results when studying whether the colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) improve outcomes in patients with FN. This Cochrane Collaboration review was undertaken to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CSFs in patients with FN. METHODS An exhaustive literature search was undertaken including major electronic databases (CANCERLIT, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, SCI, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register). All randomized controlled trials that compare CSFs plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of established FN in adults and children were sought. A meta-analysis of the selected studies was performed. RESULTS More than 8,000 references were screened, with 13 studies meeting eligibility criteria for inclusion. The overall mortality was not influenced significantly by the use of CSF (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.08; P = .1). A marginally significant result was obtained for the use of CSF in reducing infection-related mortality (OR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.00; P = .05). Patients treated with CSFs had a shorter length of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.82; P = .0006) and a shorter time to neutrophil recovery (HR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.46; P < .00001). CONCLUSION The use of the CSFs in patients with established FN caused by cancer chemotherapy reduces the amount of time spent in hospital and the neutrophil recovery period. The possible influence of the CSFs on infection-related mortality requires further investigation.
Sao Paulo Medical Journal | 1997
Aldemar Araújo Castro; O.A.C. Clark; Álvaro Nagib Atallah
OBJECTIVE To define and disseminate the optimal search strategy for clinical trials in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature (LILACS). This strategy was elaborated based on the optimal search strategy for MEDLINE recommended by Cochrane Collaboration for the identification of clinical trials in electronic databases. DESIGN Technical information. SETTING Clinical Trials and Meta-Analysis Unit, Federal University of São Paulo, in conjunction with the Brazilian Cochrane Center, São Paulo, Brazil. (http://www.epm.br/cochrane). DATA LILACS/CD-ROM (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database), 27th edition, January 1997, edited by BIREME (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Center). LILACS Indexes 670 journals in the region, with abstracts in English, Portuguese or Spanish; only 41 overlap in the MEDLINE-EMBASE. Of the 168,902 citations since 1982, 104,016 are in human trials, and 38,261 citations are potentiality clinical trials. Search strategy was elaborated combining headings with text word in three languages, adapting the interface of the LILACS. We will be working by locating clinical trials in LILACS for Cochrane Controlled Trials Database. This effort is being coordinated by the Brazilian Cochrane Center.
Lung Cancer | 2011
Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; O.A.C. Clark; Lg Clark; Luciano Paladini; Enéas Faleiros; B Pegoretti
OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of chemotherapy (CT) plus Bevacizumab (Bev) versus CT alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data, using a fixed effects model and an additional random effects model, when applicable. The results of the MA are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI95%). We analyzed the use of Bev in the doses of 7.5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg. RESULTS The final analysis included 4 trials, comprising 2200 patients. The response rate was higher in patients who received the combination of CT plus Bev 7.5 mg/kg (RR=0.58; CI95%=0.46-0.74; p<0.00001) and Bev 15 mg/kg (RR=0.53; CI95%=0.45-0.63; p<0.00001) with moderate heterogeneity at dose of 15 mg/kg (Chi(2)=4.30, df=3 (P=0.23); I(2)=30%). The PFS length was longer in patients who received CT plus Bev 7.5 mg/kg (HR=0.78, CI95%=0.68-0.90; p=0.0005) and Bev 15 mg/kg (HR=0.72, CI95%=0.65-0.80; p<0.00001) with moderate heterogeneity (Bev 7.5 mg/kg: Chi(2)=1.43, df=1 (P=0.23); I(2)=30% and Bev 15 mg/kg: Chi(2)=7.43, df=3 (P=0.06); I(2)=60%). Differences in these end points remained in favor of CT plus Bev when made the analysis by random-effects model. Overall survival was longer in patients who received CT plus Bev 15 mg/kg (HR=0.89, CI95%=0.80-1.00; p=0.04), with moderate heterogeneity (Chi(2)=5.09, df=3 (P=0.17); I(2)=41%). The random-effects model analysis for this endpoint did not confirmed the difference seen in the fixed effects model analysis (HR=0.90, CI95%=0.76-1.07; p=0.23). Severe haematologic toxicities (grade>3), neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were more common among the patients that received Bev. CONCLUSION The combination of CT plus Bev increased the response rate and progression-free survival of patients with NSCLC. With respect to overall survival the benefits of Bev remains uncertain.
BMC Urology | 2014
Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; O.A.C. Clark; Rodolfo Borges dos Reis; Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo; Ubirajara Ferreira; Marcus Vinicius Sadi; Francisco Flávio Horta Bretas
BackgroundProstate cancer is the most common cancer in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen deprivation (AD) constitutes, in most cases, the first-line of treatment for these cases. The negative impact of CAD in quality of life, secondary to the adverse events of sustained hormone deprivation, plus the costs of this therapy, motivated the intermittent treatment approach. The objective of this study is to to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.MethodsSeveral databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), time to progression (TTP) and adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data. The results were expressed as Hazard Ratio (HR) or Risk Ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI 95%).ResultsThe final analysis included 13 trials comprising 6,419 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. TTP was similar in patients who received intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) or continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) (fixed effect: HR = 1.04; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.14; p = 0.3). OS and CSS were also similar in patients treated with IAD or CAD (OS: fixed effect: HR = 1.02; CI 95% = 0.95 to 1.09; p = 0.56 and CSS: fixed effect: HR = 1.06; CI 95% = 0.96 to 1.18; p = 0.26).ConclusionOverall survival was similar between IAD and CAD in patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Data on CSS are weak and the benefits of IAD on this outcome remain uncertain. Impact in QoL was similar for both groups, however, sexual activity scores were higher and the incidence of hot flushes was lower in patients treated with IAD.
International Braz J Urol | 2010
Aguinaldo C. Nardi; Stênio de Cássio Zequi; O.A.C. Clark; Jose C. Almeida; Sidney Glina
PURPOSE In Brazil, National data regarding the epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are scarce. The aim of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical, and pathologic characteristics of RCC diagnosed and treated by members of the SBU - Brazilian Society of Urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS For this cross-sectional study, data were collected through an on line questionnaire available to the members of the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU). Between May 2007 and May 2008, voluntary participant urologists collected data on demographic, clinical and pathological characteristics from patients diagnosed with RCC in their practice. RESULTS Fifty SBU affiliated institutions contributed with patient information to the study. Of the 508 patients, 58.9% were male, 78.9% were white, and the mean age was 59.8 years. Smoking history, high blood pressure and a body mass index above 30 kg/m2 were present in 14.8%, 46.1% and 17.9% of the patients, respectively. Abdominal ultrasound and computed tomography were the main diagnostic methods. The majority of the cases were localized tumors and metastasis were presented in 9.5% of the patients; 98.4% underwent nephrectomy. Clear cell carcinoma was the most common histological type. In comparison with private institutions, stage IV disease was less frequent among patients treated at public health services (P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS RCC in Brazil is more common in white men in their sixth decade of life. Ultrasound is the main diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of clear cell carcinoma and we found that localized disease was predominant. A national registry of RCC is feasible and may provide valuable information.
Core Evidence | 2013
Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; O.A.C. Clark; Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo; Francisco Flávio Horta Bretas; Marcus Vinicius Sadi; Ubirajara Ferreira; Rodolfo Borges dos Reis
Background The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and side effect profile of hypofractionated versus conventional external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Methods Several databases were searched, including Medline, EmBase, LiLACS, and Central. The endpoints were freedom from biochemical failure and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis of the published data. The results are expressed as the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The final analysis included nine trials comprising 2702 patients. Freedom from biochemical failure was reported in only three studies and was similar in patients who received hypofractionated or conventional radiotherapy (fixed effect, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88–1.20; P = 0.75), with heterogeneity [χ2 = 15.32, df = 2 (P = 0.0005); I2 = 87%]. The incidence of acute adverse gastrointestinal events was higher in the hypofractionated group (fixed effect, RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.45–2.81; P < 0.0001). We also found moderate heterogeneity on this analysis [χ2 = 7.47, df = 5 (P = 0.19); I2 = 33%]. Acute genitourinary toxicity was similar among the groups (fixed effect, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95–1.49; P = 0.13), with moderate heterogeneity [χ2 = 5.83, df = 4 (P = 0.21); I2 = 31%]. The incidence of all late adverse events was the same in both groups (fixed effect, gastrointestinal toxicity, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79–1.72, P = 0.44; and acute genitourinary toxicity, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80–1.68, P = 0.44). Conclusion Hypofractionated radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer was not superior to conventional radiotherapy and showed higher acute gastrointestinal toxicity in this meta-analysis. Because the number of published studies is still small, future assessments should be conducted to clarify better the true role of hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.
Value in Health | 2011
Lg Clark; Ana Paula Beltran Moschione Castro; Anna Flávia Fortes; Fábio Santos; O.A.C. Clark; T Engel; B Pegoretti; Vanessa Teich; Denizar Vianna; Fabíola Puty
OBJECTIVES Single-size vials of drugs may be a source of waste and increase in treatment costs. Bortezomib, indicated for multiple myeloma (MM) treatment, is available in 3.5-mg vials, a quantity higher than the average dose commonly prescribed. This analysis aimed to demonstrate, through real-world data, which would be the optimal vial presentation for bortezomib in Brazil and quantify the reduction in medication waste related to this option. METHODS From November 2007 to October 2009 all patients with MM treated with bortezomib were identified via the Evidências database. Analysis of prescribed, dispensed, and wasted doses, their costs and projections of the ideal vial size were performed. RESULTS Thirty-five patients (mean body surface area of 1.73 m(2)) received 509 infusions in 131 cycles of treatment (average of 3.77 cycles per patient). The average dose prescribed was 2.1 mg per infusion (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-2.26) with average waste of 39.5% of the vial content (95% CI 35.35-43.76). The mean waste per patient per day was 1.38 mg (95% CI 1.24-1.52). If a 3-mg vial were available, the average drug waste per patient per day would be 0.88 mg (95% CI 0.74-1.03) or 36.2% less. With a 2.5-mg vial the waste would be 1.05 mg (95% CI 0.81-1.29) or 23.9% less. If two presentations were available (2.5 mg and 0.5 mg), the waste would be 0.52 mg (95% CI 0.4-0.63) or 62.5% less. Considering the price of the different vials to be proportional to the original 3.5-mg vial, the cost would be also reduced by the same rates described above. CONCLUSIONS A simple adjustment in vial size may reduce the waste of bortezomib by 36% to 62% and can also reduce the cost of treatment.
Core Evidence | 2013
Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; Luciano Paladini; O.A.C. Clark
Background This paper reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of lapatinib plus chemotherapy or endocrine therapy (CET) versus CET alone in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing (HER-2+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Methods Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. The side effects of each treatment were analyzed. The data extracted from the studies were combined by using the hazard ratio or risk ratio with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of 113 references were identified and screened. The final analysis included four trials comprising 1,073 patients with HER-2+. The overall response rate was higher in patients who received the combination of CET plus lapatinib (risk ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.71–0.85; P < 0.00001) but with significant heterogeneity (χ2 = 15.61, df = 3; P = 0.001; I2 = 81%). This result remained favorable to the use of lapatinib when a random-effects model analysis was performed (risk ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.62–0.94; P = 0.01). Progression-free survival was also higher in patients who received CET plus lapatinib (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.49–0.66; P < 0.00001) with no heterogeneity detected on this analysis (χ2 = 3.05; df = 3; P = 0.38; I2 = 1%). Overall survival was significantly longer in patients who received CET plus lapatinib (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.69–0.92; P = 0.002) without heterogeneity on this analysis (χ2 = 1.26; df = 3; P = 0.74; I2 = 0%). Regarding adverse events and severe toxicities (grade ≥3), the group receiving CET plus lapatinib had higher rates of neutropenia (risk ratio 2.08; 95% CI 1.64–2.62; P < 0.00001), diarrhea (risk ratio 4.82; 95% CI 3.14–7.41; P < 0.00001), and rash (risk ratio 8.03; 95% CI 2.46–26.23; P = 0.0006). Conclusion The combination of CET plus lapatinib increased the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with HER-2+ locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
PLOS ONE | 2016
Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; O.A.C. Clark; Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo; Francisco Flávio Horta Bretas; Marcus Vinicius Sadi; Ubirajara Ferreira; Rodolfo Borges dos Reis
Objective Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen-deprivation therapy alone (ADT) remains the first line of treatment in most cases, for metastatic disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of a chemohormonal therapy (ADT ± docetaxel) for metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC). Methods Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Data extracted from the studies were combined by using the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results The final analysis included 3 trials comprising 2,264 patients (mHNPC). Patients who received the chemohormonal therapy had a longer clinical progression-free survival interval (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75; p<0.00001), and no heterogeneity (Chi2 = 0.64; df = 1 [p = 0.42]; I2 = 0%). The biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) also was higher in patients treated with ADT plus docetaxel (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.69; p<0.00001), also with no heterogeneity noted (Chi2 = 0.48; df = 2 [p = 0.79]; I2 = 0%). Finally, the combination of ADT with docetaxel showed a superior overall survival (OS) compared with ADT alone (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.84; p<0.0001), with moderate heterogeneity (Chi2 = 3.84; df = 2 [p = 0.15]; I2 = 48%). A random-effects model analysis was performed, and the results remained favorable to the use of ADT plus docetaxel (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.89; p = 0.002). In the final combined analysis of the high-volume disease patients, the use of the combination therapy also favored an increased overall survival (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.83; p = 0.0003). Regarding adverse events and severe toxicity (grade ≥3), the group receiving the combined therapy had higher rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and fatigue. Conclusion The combination of ADT with docetaxel improved the clinical progression-free survival, bPFS and OS of patients with mHNPC. A superior OS was seen especially for patients with metastatic and high-volume disease. This contemporary combination therapy may now be offered as a first-line treatment for selected patients.
BMC Medical Research Methodology | 2005
Iztok Hozo; Benjamin Djulbegovic; O.A.C. Clark; Gary H. Lyman
BackgroundOutcomes collected in randomized clinical trials are observations of random variables that should be independent and identically distributed. However, in some trials, the patients are randomized more than once thus violating both of these assumptions. The probability of an event is not always the same when a patient is re-randomized; there is probably a non-zero covariance coming from observations on the same patient. This is of particular importance to the meta-analysts.MethodsWe developed a method to estimate the relative error in the risk differences with and without re-randomization of the patients. The relative error can be estimated by an expression depending on the percentage of the patients who were re-randomized, multipliers (how many times more likely it is to repeat an event) for the probability of reoccurrences, and the ratio of the total events reported and the initial number of patients entering the trial.ResultsWe illustrate our methods using two randomized trials testing growth factors in febrile neutropenia. We showed that under some circumstances the relative error of taking into account re-randomized patients was sufficiently small to allow using the results in the meta-analysis. Our findings indicate that if the study in question is of similar size to other studies included in the meta-analysis, the error introduced by re-randomization will only minimally affect meta-analytic summary point estimate.We also show that in our model the risk ratio remains constant during the re-randomization, and therefore, if a meta-analyst is concerned about the effect of re-randomization on the meta-analysis, one way to sidestep the issue and still obtain reliable results is to use risk ratio as the measure of interest.ConclusionOur method should be helpful in the understanding of the results of clinical trials and particularly helpful to the meta-analysts to assess if re-randomized patient data can be used in their analyses.