ABSTRACT
La comunicación de malas noticias, si bien supone un momento de importante vulnerabilidad para el paciente y sus allegados, es un acto necesario para una atención de calidad. Se trata de una habilidad transversal que, sin embargo, suele carecer de una formación específica en las facultades de Medici-na. Existen numerosos protocolos que establecen las bases de una comunicación eficiente. No obs-tante, lo que marca la diferencia en términos de humanidad es el toque personal que cada médico ofrece. En este artículo ofrecemos una reflexión sobre la visión predominante en el Servicio de Onco-logía Médica de Fuenlabrada del proceso de comunicación de malas noticias. Exponemos conceptos metafísicos, psicológicos y sociales sobre los cuales impera la necesidad de reflexionar para, desde una compresión profunda de la dificultad que la comunicación de malas noticias entraña, ser capa-ces de mejorar. Así mismo, sugerimos elementos fácilmente incorporables a la práctica clínica diaria.
Although the communication of bad news is a moment of great vulnerability for the patient and his or her relatives, it is necessary for quality care. However, it is a cross-cutting skill that often needs more specific training in medical schools. Numerous protocols lay the groundwork for efficient communication. However, each physician's personal touch makes a difference in terms of humanity. In this article, we reflect on the predominant vision of communicating bad news in the Medical On-cology Service of Fuenlabrada. We expose metaphysical, psychological, and social concepts on which there is a need to reflect to be able to improve from a deep understanding of the difficulty that the communication of bad news entails. Finally, we suggest elements that can be easily incorporated into daily clinical practice.
Subject(s)
Humans , Palliative Care , Neoplasms , Mortality , Communication , Interdisciplinary Communication , Health CommunicationABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Background: Neoadjuvant therapy, followed by surgery, reduces the risk of local relapse in rectal cancer, but approximately 30% will relapse with distant metastases, highlighting the importance of adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT). Objective: The objective of the study was to study two regimens of adjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and analyze their efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Between January 2009 and December 2016, 193 patients with Stage II-III rectal cancer who had received neoadjuvant therapy were included by consecutive non-probability sampling. The decision to administer aCT, as well as the specific regimen, was at the discretion of the medical oncologist. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Results: The mean DFS was 84.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79-90) months in 164 patients receiving aCT, compared to 57.71 (95% CI: 40-74) months in 29 who did not receive aCT (p < 0.001). Then, mean OS was 92.7 (95% CI: 88-97) months and 66.18 (95% CI 51-81) months, respectively (p < 0.001). DFS was 83.6 (95% CI: 76-91) months in 74 patients receiving adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and 82.9 (95% CI: 75-90) months in 90 receiving 5-FU plus oxaliplatin (p = 0.49). OS was 87 (95% CI: 80-94) versus 93.65 (95% CI: 88-99) months, respectively (p = 0.76). The multivariate analysis identified aCT hazard ratio (HR) 0.30 (95% CI: 0.1-0.46), perineural invasion HR 3.36 (95% CI: 1.7-6.5), and pathological complete response HR 0.10 (95% CI; 0.01-0.75) as independent markers of DFS. Conclusions: In our study, aCT was associated with longer DFS and OS. 5-FU plus oxaliplatin showed greater toxicity with no added benefit in DFS or OS.