How appropriate is treating patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer with anticancer drugs? A multicenter retrospective cohort Spanish study.

AIM: To assess the appropriateness of systemic oncological treatments (SOT) provided to patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer (EC) across a group of participating hospitals. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study in five Spanish hospitals including newly confirmed advanced EC cases between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, with a 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 157 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria (median age: 65 years, 85.9% males). Most patients, 125 (79.6%) were treated at least with one active treatment, and 33% received two or more lines of SOT. The 1-, 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 30.3% [95%CI: 23.8, 38.7], 14.0% [95%CI: 9.3, 21.0], and 7.1% [95% CI: 3.8, 13.1] respectively, and the median survival time 8 months (95% CI: 6, 19) for stages IIIb IIIc and 7 months (95% CI: 5, 9) for stage IV. Clinical stage, receiving more than one line of SOT, and treatment with radiotherapy accelerated the time to death (0.4, 0.9-, and 0.8-times shorter survival respectively, p < 0.05). Better performance status (ECOG < 2) extended survival time by 2.2 times (p = 0.04). Age < 65 years (OR 9.4, 95% CI 3.2, 31.4, p < 0.001), and being treated in one particular hospital (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 0.8, p < 0.01) were associated with the administration of two or more lines of SOT. Altogether, 18.9% and 9.0% of patients received chemotherapy in the last four and two weeks of life, respectively. Moreover, 2.5% of patients were prescribed a new line of chemotherapy during the last month of life. The proportion of all patients who did not have access to palliative care reached 29.3%, and among those who had access to it, 34.2% initiated it in the last month of life. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of advanced EC patients receive many treatments not based on sound evidence and they do not benefit enough from palliative care services. The most accepted appropriateness indicators point out that some of the analyzed patients could have been overtreated. This study provides important insights into the quality of care provided to advanced EC, and furthermore, for giving valuable insight and opportunities for improvement.

Consensus on prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in controversial clinical situations with low levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients suffer high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cancer-associated VTE (CAT) causes hospitalization, morbidity, delayed cancer treatment, and mortality; therefore, exceptional CAT prevention and management are imperative. METHODS: This review offers practical recommendations and treatment algorithms for eight complex, clinically relevant situations posing great uncertainty regarding management and requiring an urgent decision: VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients with pancreatic pancreas (1) or lung cancer with molecular alterations (2); optimal management of VTE during antineoplastic treatment with antiangiogenics (3) or chemotherapy (4); protracted VTE treatment, determinants; (5) drugs used (6), and optimal VTE management in situations of high bleeding risk (7) or recurrent VTE (8). RESULTS: With the evidence available, primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with lung cancer harbouring ALK/ROS1 translocations or pancreatic cancer receiving ambulatory chemotherapy must be appraised. If antiangiogenic therapy can yield a clear benefit and the patient recovers from a grade 3 thrombotic event, it can be cautiously re-introduced in selected cases, provided that the person agrees to assume the risk after being duly informed. Anticoagulation maintenance beyond 6 months is recommended in individuals with metastatic tumours, on active treatment, or at high risk for recurrent VTE without bleeding risk. In such cases, LMWH and DOACs are safe, being mindful that the latter could entail a higher risk of bleeding; consequently, they should be used judiciously in more haemorrhagic tumours, such as gastrointestinal cancers. In cases of recurrent VTE, the presence of active cancer, infra-therapeutic dose, and anticoagulant treatment failure must be ruled out. In individuals with platelet counts of 25,000-50,000 and VTE liable to recur who need anticoagulation, full-dose LMWH and transfusion support can be contemplated to reach values of > 50,000. In CAT unlikely to recur, decreasing the LMWH dose by 25-50% is recommended. Renal impairment associated with thrombosis must be treated with LMWHs; there is no need to adjust the dose in patients with CrCl > 30; with CrCl = 15-30, dose adjustment is advised, and suspended when CrCl is < 15. CONCLUSION: We provide useful advice for complex, clinically relevant situations that clinicians treating CAT must face devoid of any unequivocal, strong, evidence-based recommendations.