SEOM guidelines for cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common cancer worldwide, strongly linked to high-risk human papilloma virus infection. Although screening programs have led to a relevant reduction in the incidence and mortality due to CC in developed countries, it is still an important cause of mortality in undeveloped countries. Clinical stage is still the most relevant prognostic factor. In early stages, the primary treatment is surgery or radiotherapy, whereas concomitant chemo-radiotherapy is the conventional approach in locally advanced stages. In the setting of recurrent or metastatic CC, for the first time ever, the combination of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab prolongs the overall survival beyond 12 months. Therefore, this regimen is considered by most of the oncologist a new standard of care for metastatic/recurrent CC.

SEOM guidelines for cervical cáncer

Cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common cancer worldwide, strongly linked to high-risk human papilloma virus infection. Although screening programs have led to a relevant reduction in the incidence and mortality due to CC in developed countries, it is still an important cause of mortality in undeveloped countries. Clinical stage is still the most relevant prognostic factor. In early stages, the primary treatment is surgery or radiotherapy, whereas concomitant chemo-radiotherapy is the conventional approach in locally advanced stages. In the setting of recurrent or metastatic CC, for the first time ever, the combination of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab prolongs the overall survival beyond 12 months. Therefore, this regimen is considered by most of the oncologist a new standard of care for metastatic/recurrent CC (AU)

No disponible

SEOM guideline in ovarian cancer 2014

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death due to gynecological cancer and the 5th cause of death for cancer in women in Europe. Optimal management of patients with ovarian cancer needs the participation of a well-trained multidisciplinary team. In the last few years, we have observed a significant improvement in the knowledge of the molecular biology of the different histotypes of ovarian cancer that will probably change our standard of care in the forthcoming years. In this Guideline, we summarize the most current evidence for the medical management of ovarian cancer (AU)

No disponible

SEOM guideline in ovarian cancer 2014.

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death due to gynecological cancer and the 5th cause of death for cancer in women in Europe. Optimal management of patients with ovarian cancer needs the participation of a well-trained multidisciplinary team. In the last few years, we have observed a significant improvement in the knowledge of the molecular biology of the different histotypes of ovarian cancer that will probably change our standard of care in the forthcoming years. In this Guideline, we summarize the most current evidence for the medical management of ovarian cancer.

Two biomarker-directed randomized trials in European and Chinese patients with nonsmall-cell lung cancer: the BRCA1-RAP80 Expression Customization (BREC) studies.

BACKGROUND: In a Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) phase II trial, the combination of BRCA1 and receptor-associated protein 80 (RAP80) expression was significantly associated with outcome in Caucasian patients with nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The SLCG therefore undertook an industry-independent collaborative randomized phase III trial comparing nonselected cisplatin-based chemotherapy with therapy customized according to BRCA1/RAP80 expression. An analogous randomized phase II trial was carried out in China under the auspices of the SLCG to evaluate the effect of BRCA1/RAP80 expression in Asian patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included stage IIIB-IV NSCLC and sufficient tumor specimen for molecular analysis. Randomization to the control or experimental arm was 1 : 1 in the SLCG trial and 1 : 3 in the Chinese trial. In both trials, patients in the control arm received docetaxel/cisplatin; in the experimental arm, patients with low RAP80 expression received gemcitabine/cisplatin, those with intermediate/high RAP80 expression and low/intermediate BRCA1 expression received docetaxel/cisplatin, and those with intermediate/high RAP80 expression and high BRCA1 expression received docetaxel alone. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-nine patients in the SLCG trial and 124 in the Chinese trial were assessable for PFS. PFS in the control and experimental arms in the SLCG trial was 5.49 and 4.38 months, respectively [log rank P = 0.07; hazard ratio (HR) 1.28; P = 0.03]. In the Chinese trial, PFS was 4.74 and 3.78 months, respectively (log rank P = 0.82; HR 0.95; P = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Accrual was prematurely closed on the SLCG trial due to the absence of clinical benefit in the experimental over the control arm. However, the BREC studies provide proof of concept that an international, nonindustry, biomarker-directed trial is feasible. Thanks to the groundwork laid by these studies, we expect that ongoing further research on alternative biomarkers to elucidate DNA repair mechanisms will help define novel therapeutic approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00617656/GECP-BREC and ChiCTR-TRC-12001860/BREC-CHINA.

GEICO (Spanish Group for Investigation on Ovarian Cancer) treatment guidelines in ovarian cancer 2012

In 2006, under the auspices of The Spanish Research Group for Ovarian Cancer (Spanish initials GEICO), the first "Treatment Guidelines in Ovarian Cancer" were developed and then published in Clinical and Translational Oncology by Poveda Velasco et al. (Clin Transl Oncol 9(5):308-316, 2007). Almost 6 years have elapsed and over this time, we have seen some important developments in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Significant changes were also introduced after the GCIG-sponsored 4th Consensus Conference on Ovarian Cancer by Stuart et al. (Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:750-755, 2011). So we decided to update the treatment guidelines in ovarian cancer and, with this objective, a group of investigators of the GEICO group met in February 2012. This study summarizes the presentations, discussions and evidence that were reviewed during the meeting and during further discussions of the manuscript (AU)

GEICO (Spanish Group for Investigation on Ovarian Cancer) treatment guidelines in ovarian cancer 2012.

In 2006, under the auspices of The Spanish Research Group for Ovarian Cancer (Spanish initials GEICO), the first "Treatment Guidelines in Ovarian Cancer" were developed and then published in Clinical and Translational Oncology by Poveda Velasco et al. (Clin Transl Oncol 9(5):308-316, 2007). Almost 6 years have elapsed and over this time, we have seen some important developments in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Significant changes were also introduced after the GCIG-sponsored 4th Consensus Conference on Ovarian Cancer by Stuart et al. (Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:750-755, 2011). So we decided to update the treatment guidelines in ovarian cancer and, with this objective, a group of investigators of the GEICO group met in February 2012. This study summarizes the presentations, discussions and evidence that were reviewed during the meeting and during further discussions of the manuscript.

Adjuvant therapy with bemiparin in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer: results from the ABEL study.

INTRODUCTION: The haemostatic system plays an important role in the process of cancer development and spread. Anticoagulants, mainly low molecular weight heparins, could prolong survival in cancer patients, particularly in patients with lung cancer, beyond prevention of thromboembolic events. METHODS: In a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, sequential study, 38 patients with newly-diagnosed, limited-stage small-cell lung cancer were randomized to receive standard chemoradiotherapy or the same therapy plus 3,500 IU daily of bemiparin for a maximum of 26 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to slow recruitment. Median progression-free survival was 272 days with chemoradiotherapy alone and 410 days in the bemiparin group; hazard ratio, 2.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.80); p=0.022. Median overall survival was 345 days with chemoradiotherapy alone and 1133 days in the bemiparin group; hazard ratio, 2.96 (95% CI, 1.22-7.21); p=0.017. The rate of tumor response was similar in both study arms. There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of major bleeding. Toxicity related with the experimental treatment was minimal. CONCLUSION: The addition of bemiparin to first line therapy with chemoradiotherapy significantly increases survival in patients with newly-diagnosed, limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. (Funded by the Instituto Científico y Tecnológico, University of Navarra. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00324558).

SEOM guidelines for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is a rare malignant tumour. Asbestos is the principal aetiological agent of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) (≈80% of cases). The incidence of MPM is still increasing and will peak within the next 10 years. There are three main histological types of MPM: epithelial (≈60%), sarcomatous and mixed. There is no standard approach for patients with MPM. Surgery (radical extra-pleural pneumonectomy or pleurectomy/decortication) may be part of the initial treatment for carefully selected patients, generally combined with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiotherapy, and should only be performed by experienced thoracic surgeons as part of a multidisciplinary team. Radiotherapy could be used as prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of recurrence at sites of diagnoses or therapeutic instrument insertion, in a multimodal treatment to improve locoregional control and to palliate symptoms. Based on the better compliance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lower rate of surgical morbidity and the possibility to select the optimal patients to be submitted to surgery, a neoadjuvant strategy is a better option than adjuvant chemotherapy, although there is no standard optimal sequence and types of treatment for multimodal therapy. In patients with no resectable disease, chemotherapy is the best option with platinum and pemetrexed or raltitrexed. At this time there is no widely approved salvage therapy (AU)

Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecule drug conjugate linking paclitaxel to polyglutamic acid, reduces systemic exposure to peak concentrations of free paclitaxel. Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had received one prior platinum-based chemotherapy received 175 or 210 mg m(-2) PPX or 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel. The study enrolled 849 previously treated NSCLC patients with advanced disease. Median survival (6.9 months in both arms, hazard ratio=1.09, P=0.257), 1-year survival (PPX=25%, docetaxel=29%, P=0.134), and time to progression (PPX=2 months, docetaxel=2.6 months, P=0.075) were similar between treatment arms. Paclitaxel poliglumex was associated with significantly less grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (P<0.001) and febrile neutropenia (P=0.006). Grade 3 or 4 neuropathy (P<0.001) was more common in the PPX arm. Patients receiving PPX had less alopecia and did not receive routine premedications. More patients discontinued due to adverse events in the PPX arm compared to the docetaxel arm (34 vs 16%, P<0.001). Paclitaxel poliglumex and docetaxel produced similar survival results but had different toxicity profiles. Compared with docetaxel, PPX had less febrile neutropenia and less alopecia, shorter infusion times, and elimination of routine use of medications to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. Paclitaxel poliglumex at a dose of 210 mg m(-2) resulted in increased neurotoxicity compared with docetaxel.

Randomized phase II trial of carboplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in platinum-sensitive recurrent advanced ovarian carcinoma: a GEICO (Grupo Espanol de Investigacion en Cancer de Ovario) study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether the response rate for the paclitaxel-carboplatin combination is superior to carboplatin alone in the treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma, 6 months after treatment with a platinum-based regimen and with no more than two previous chemotherapy lines, were randomized to receive carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 (arm A) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) + carboplatin AUC 5 (arm B). The primary end point was objective response, following a 'pick up the winner' design. Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), overall survival, tolerability and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The response rate in arm B was 75.6% [26.8% complete response (CR) + 48.8% partial response (PR)] [95% confidence interval (CI) 59.7% to 87.6%] and 50% in arm A (20% CR + 30% PR) (95% CI 33.8% to 66.2%). No significant differences were observed in grade 3-4 hematological toxicity. Conversely, mucositis, myalgia/arthralgia and peripheral neurophaty were more frequent in arm B. Median TTP was 49.1 weeks in arm B (95% CI 36.9-61.3) and 33.7 weeks in arm A (95% CI 25.8-41.5). No significant differences were found in the QoL analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel-carboplatin combination is a tolerable regimen with a higher response rate than carboplatin monotherapy in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Tumor markers (CEA, CA 125, CYFRA 21-1, SCC and NSE) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer as an aid in histological diagnosis and prognosis. Comparison with the main clinical and pathological prognostic factors.

CEA, CA 125, SCC, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE were prospectively studied in 211 patients with non-small cell lung cancer and compared with clinical parameters (age, sex, Karnofsky Index, symptoms and smoking status), histopathological parameters (stage, histology, tumor size and nodal involvement), biological parameters (LDH and albumin) and the therapy used (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy). Tumor marker sensitivity was CYFRA 21-1: 76%, CA 125: 55%, CEA: 52%, SCC: 33% and NSE: 22%. One of the tumor markers was abnormally high in 87% of the patients with locoregional disease and in 100% of the patients with metastases. Except for NSE, all tumor markers showed a clear relationship with tumor stage and histology and therefore enabled a better histological diagnosis. Abnormal CEA serum levels were mainly found in adenocarcinomas, CA 125 in large-cell lung cancers (LCLC) and adenocarcinomas and SCC in squamous tumors. Eighty-five percent of the patients with SCC levels >2 ng/ml had squamous tumors. Likewise, CA 125 levels <60 U/ml or CEA <10 ng/ml excluded adenocarcinoma or LCLC with a probability of 82 and 91%, respectively.

Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus a cisplatin-based triplet versus nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the survival benefit obtained with cisplatin plus gemcitabine, a cisplatin-based triplet, and nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CG); cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CGV); or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 plus vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for three cycles, followed by vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 3 g/m2 day 1, every 3 weeks for three cycles (GV-VI). RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-seven patients were assigned to treatment (182 CG, 188 CGV, 187 GV-VI). Response rates were significantly inferior for the nonplatinum sequential doublet (CG, 42%; CGV, 41%; GV-VI, 27%; CG v GV-VI, P =.003). No differences in median survival or time to progression were observed. Toxicity was higher for the triplet: grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (GC, 32%; CGV, 57%; GV-VI, 27%; P <.05); neutropenic fever (CG, 4%; CGV, 19%; GV-VI, 5%; P <.0001); grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia (CG, 19%; CGV, 23%; GV-VI, 3%; P =.0001); and grade 3 to 4 emesis (GC, 22%; GCV, 32%; GV-VI, 6%; P <.0001). CONCLUSION: On the basis of these results, CG remains a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Randomised double-blind study comparing tropisetron alone and in combination with dexamethasone in the prevention of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis.

In a randomised, double-blind and parallel-design multicentre study, 282 chemotherapy-naive cancer patients received tropisetron 5 mg intravenously (i.v.) before high-dose cisplatin on day 1, and oral tropisetron 5 mg daily on days 2-6, in combination with either placebo (n = 143) or dexamethasone (n = 135), given i.v. on day 1 and orally on days 2-6. Complete protection from acute vomiting/nausea was achieved in 76.3%/79.3% of patients receiving the combination and in 55.2%/61.5% of those receiving tropisetron alone. Complete protection on days 2-6 from delayed vomiting/nausea was obtained in 60%/60% and 39.2%/40.6%, respectively. Tropisetron in combination with dexamethasone is safe and more effective than tropisetron alone in the prevention of both acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis.