RESUMO
Background: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard of treatment in early cervical cancer. Adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy are offered to patients with risk factors for recurrence. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of severe (> G3) early or late morbidity related to treatment in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radical surgery with/without adjuvant treatment in a Latin American center. Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer stage IA1 to IB1. Complications were evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. The cumulative incidence of severe morbidity was estimated. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated to determine the factors associated with morbidity. Results: 239 patients were included. 133 (55.6%) received only radical surgical management and 106 (44.4%) adjuvant treatment. The incidence of early morbidity was 18.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.6% to 26.5%] in the group without adjuvant treatment versus 21.7% (95% CI: 14.3% to 30.8%) in the adjuvant treatment group (p = 0.58). Late morbidity was 3% (95% CI: 1% to 7.5%) and 8.5% (95% CI: 4% to 15.5%), respectively (p = 0.063). No statistically significant differences regarding grade ≥ 3 morbidity between the groups was found (2.3% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.289). Complications during surgery is the only factor associated with postoperative morbidity related to treatment (RR = 4.1) (95% CI: 3% to 5.7%). Conclusion: In our study, the addition of adjuvant treatment for early cervical cancer patients who underwent radical surgery did not increase the incidence of severe early or late morbidity.
RESUMO
Abstract Introduction: Among the sub-types of lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, or what was previously known as intermediate lymphocytic lymphoma, accounts for 3-10% of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Treatment is directed according to the patient's classification, age, functional status and comorbidities, and is directly related to the ability to receive intensive treatment or transplantation. It is important to homogenize treatments to offer the best alternatives in the Colombian context, as there are different diagnostic and therapeutic options today, most of which are financed by the Colombian healthcare system. Objective: To structure a series of considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of MCL within the Colombian context. Methods: A formal, mixed (Delphi/nominal) expert consensus was developed. The options for each question were scored in two masked rounds and an open nominal session. The information was consolidated in Excel and analyzed using STATA 13. Results: 25 considerations were developed for the diagnosis and treatment of MCL. Twenty-two specialists participated: 16 hematologists and hematologist-oncologists, four hematopathologists, one radiation therapist and one nuclear medicine specialist from Bogotá, Medellín and Cali, with an average of 10.5 years' of practical experience and who were members of the Asociación Colombiana de Hematología y Oncología [Colombian Association of Hematology and Oncology]. Conclusions: The consensus established 26 considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of MCL, according to the Colombian context, aimed at healthcare professionals with a direct relationship with this disease. It is expected that clinical management will be homogenized by a consideration of this consensus and the referenced literature. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2023.2606).
Resumen Introducción: Dentro de los subtipos de linfoma, el linfoma de células del manto o anteriormente denominado linfoma linfocítico intermedio corresponde a 3-10% de los linfoma no Hodgkin de células B. El tratamiento se enfoca según la clasificación del paciente, edad, estado funcional y comorbilidades, lo cual está directamente relacionado con la capacidad de recibir un tratamiento intensivo o trasplante. Es importante homogeneizar conductas con el fin de ofrecer las mejores alternativas bajo el contexto colombiano, pues actualmente existen diferentes opciones diagnósticas y terapéuticas, financiadas en su mayoría por el sistema de salud colombiano. Objetivo: Estructurar una serie de consideraciones para el diagnóstico y tratamiento para LCM, en el contexto colombiano. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo un consenso formal de expertos, tipo mixto (Delphi/ Nominal). Se calificaron las opciones de cada pregunta en dos rondas enmascaradas y una sesión abierta nominal. La información fue consolidada en Excel y analizada en STATA 13. Resultados: Se elaboraron 25 consideraciones para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de LCM. Participaron 22 médicos especialistas: 16 hematólogos y hemato-oncólogos, cuatro hemato-patólogos, un radioterapeuta y un especialista en medicina nuclear de Bogotá, Medellín y Cali, con experticia en la práctica de 10.5 años en promedio y quienes forman parte de la Asociación Colombiana de Hematología y Oncología. Conclusiones: El consenso definió 26 consideraciones para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de LCM, según el contexto colombiano, dirigidas a profesionales de la salud con relación directa a esta patología. Se espera homogeneizar las conductas clínicas teniendo en cuenta este consenso y la literatura referida. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2023.2606).
RESUMO
Resumen Introducción: En 2018 el cáncer de próstata presentó el segundo lugar en incidencia a nivel mundial. Con el avance en la tecnología y la aparición de la radioterapia de intensidad modulada (IMRT), se ha logrado disminuir dosis a tejido sano sin reducir la cobertura del volumen objetivo, permitiendo menor morbilidad asociada por la radioterapia y la posibilidad de escalar la dosis del tratamiento. El objetivo del estudio fue mostrar los resultados en supervivencia global y supervivencia libre de recaída bioquímica en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología de Colombia (INC) en los paciente diagnosticados con cáncer de próstata tratados con radioterapia de intensidad modulada (IMRT). Materiales y métodos: La revisión retrospectiva incluyó 98 pacientes, mayores de 40 años con cáncer de próstata, sin evidencia de enfermedad metastásica, tratados con IMRT entre 2008 - 2015, independiente de la supresión androgénica. La dosis administrada de radioterapia varió según su riesgo basado en la clasificación D´Amico. Hallazgos: La mediana de edad fue de 68,5 años, dentro de los cuales 16 pacientes (16%) se catalogaron de bajo riesgo, 33 (34 %) de riesgo intermedio y 49 (50 %) de riesgo alto. La dosis media de radioterapia recibida fue de 75,8 Gy. La supervivencia libre de recaída bioquímica a 5 años fue del 78,6 % y la supervivencia global fue 98 %. Conclusión: En pacientes con cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo, la IMRT es una alternativa efectiva y segura, con una supervivencia global a 5 años del 98% y con un adecuado perfil dosimétrico a los órganos a riesgo.
Abstract Background: In 2018, prostate cancer ranked second in incidence worldwide. Advances in technology and the appearance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, have made it possible to reduce doses to healthy tissue without reducing the coverage of the target volume, thus allowing lower morbidity associated with adiotherapy and the possibility of scaling the treatment dose. The aim of the study was to present the results in overall survival and biochemical relapse-free survival at the Colombian National Cancer Institute (INC) in patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cáncer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Material and methods: The retrospective review included 98 patients over 40 years of age with prostate cancer, without evidence of metastatic disease, treated with IMRT between 2008 and 2015 irrespective of androgenic suppression. The administered dose of radiotherapy varied according to their risk based on the D'Amico classification. Results: The median age was 68.5 years, and of the total of 98 patients, 16 (16%) were classified as low risk, 33 (33%) as intermediate risk, and 49 (50%) as high risk. The mean dose of radiation therapy received was 75.8 Gy. Biochemical relapse-free survival at 5 years was 78.6%, and overall survival was 98%. Conclusions: In patients with high-risk prostate cancer, IMRT is an effective and safe alternative, with an overall 5-year survival of 98%, and an adequate dosimetric profile for at-risk organs.