RESUMEN

Clinical and Translational Oncology.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric oncology (GO) is a discipline that focuses on the management of elderly patients with cancer. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) created a Working group dedicated to geriatric oncology in February 2016. OBJECTIVES: The main goal of this study was to describe the current situation in Spain regarding the management of elderly cancer patients through an online survey of medical oncologists. METHODS: A descriptive survey was sent to several hospitals by means of the SEOM website. A personal e-mail was also sent to SEOM members. RESULTS: Between March 2016 and April 2017, 154 answers were collected. Only 74 centers (48%) had a geriatrics department and a mere 21 (14%) medical oncology departments had a person dedicated to GO. The vast majority (n = 135; 88%) had the perception that the number of elderly patients with cancer seen in clinical practice had increased. Eighteen (12%) oncologists had specific protocols and geriatric scales were used at 55 (31%) centers. Almost all (92%) claimed to apply special management practices using specific tools. There was agreement that GO afforded certain potential advantages. Finally, 99% of the oncologists surveyed believed it and that training in GO had to be improved. CONCLUSIONS: From the nationwide survey promoted by the Spanish Geriatric Oncology Working Group on behalf of SEOM, we conclude that there is currently no defined care structure for elderly cancer patients. There is an increasing perception of the need for training in GO. This survey reflects a reality in which specific needs are perceived.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy increases overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Prognostic and predictive factors are a high need. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab was performed. Analyzed variables included age, sex, stage, performance status (PS), location of metastases, presence of tumour-related symptoms and comorbidities, number of metastasis locations, previous chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic and radiotherapy treatments, and analytical data from the standard blood count and biochemistry. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were included. Median age was 61.5 years, 73.1% were men, 77.7% were ECOG-PS 0-1, and 86.7% were included with stage IV disease. Histology was non-squamous in 77.1%. Sixty-five received nivolumab in second line (37.1%). Thirty-eight patients had brain metastasis (22%), and 39 (22.3%) liver metastasis and 126 (72%) had more than one metastatic location. The ORR was 15.7% with median Progression free survival (PFS) 2.8 months and median OS 5.81 months. Stage III vs IV and time since the beginning of the previous line of treatment ≥ 6 vs < 6 months were associated with better response. PS 2, time since the previous line of treatment < 6 vs ≥ 6 months, and more than one metastatic location were independently associated with shorter OS in multivariable analysis (7.8 vs 2.7 months, 11.2 vs 4.6 months, and 9.4 vs 5.1 month). Finally, time since the previous treatment < 6 vs ≥ 6 months and more than one metastatic location were independently associated with shorter PFS in multivariable analysis (4.3 vs 2.3 months and 4.7 vs 2.3 months). CONCLUSION: Poor PS, short period of time since the previous treatment, and more than one metastatic location were associated with poorer prognostic.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To identify clinical and biologic variables with significant impact on survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUP) and to develop a simple prognostic model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, univariate and multivariate prognostic factors analyses were conducted in a population of 100 patients with CUP. Patients with features requiring well defined treatments had previously been excluded. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) was significantly related to the following pretreatment adverse prognostic clinical factors: a poor performance status (2 or 3), weight loss more than 10% in the last six months, the presence of liver metastases and more than two metastatic sites. Two biological parameters predicted a significantly shorter survival: elevated serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and of lactate dehydrogenase. In the multivariate analysis, only two independent adverse prognostic parameters were retained: a poor performance status and the presence of liver metastases. We developed a prognostic model for OS based on the following subgroups: good prognosis (PS 0 or 1 and absence of liver metastases), intermediate prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases) and poor prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases). Median OS for the three groups was 10.8, 4 and 1.9 months respectively, p<0.0001. CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic model using performance status and presence of liver metastases was developed. It allowed the assignment of patients into three subgroups with different outcomes. Treatment strategies could be adapted for each subgroup. We think that this prognostic model could be useful and should be validated in other patient series.

Asunto(s)