Age, Gleason Score, and PSA are important prognostic factors for survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Results of The Uroncor Group (Uro-Oncological Tumors) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR).

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has changed significantly in recent years. Inhibitors of androgen receptors have shown especially significant benefits in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), with a good toxicity profile. Treatment selection depends on the patient's individual clinical, radiological, and biological characteristics. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment outcomes (efficacy, toxicity) in a cohort of patients with mCRPC in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective study of patients with mCRPC included in a database of the Urological Tumour Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Metastatic CRPC was defined according to the prostate cancer working group 3 (PCWG3) criteria. The Kaplan-Meier technique was used to evaluate OS and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, v.4.0) were used to assess toxicity. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the factors significantly associated with OS. RESULTS: A total of 314 patients from 17 hospitals in Spain diagnosed with mCRPC between June 2010 and September 2017 were included in this study. Mean age at diagnosis was 68 years (range 45-89). At a median follow-up of 35 months, OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 92%, 38%, and 28%, respectively. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 toxicity rates were, respectively, 68% and 19%. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. On the multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with OS: age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, p = 0.010), PSA value at diagnosis of mCRPC (HR 0.55, p = 0.008), and Gleason score (HR 0.61, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis of mCRPC are independently associated with overall survival in patients with mCRPC. The efficacy and toxicity outcomes in this patient cohort treated in radiation oncology departments in Spain are consistent with previous reports.

Are there enough radiation oncologists to lead the new Spanish radiotherapy?

AIM: Radiation oncology services in Spain are undergoing a process of technical modernization, but-in a context of increasing demand by an ageing population-it is unclear whether there are enough radiation oncologists to staff the newly equipped units. This study aims to assess the number of specialists working in radiation oncology services in Spain relative to current and future needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the second half of 2017, the Commission on Infrastructures of the Spanish Society for Radiation Oncology (SEOR) sent a questionnaire on radiation oncology staff to the heads of all 122 public (n = 76, 62%) and private (n = 46, 38%) radiation oncology services in Spain. Data collected were the number of professionals, their position, and their year of birth for specialists and residents in each service. In the descriptive analysis, for continuous variables we calculated means, standard deviations and ranges for each Spanish region and work post. For qualitative variables, we constructed frequency tables. All analyses were performed with R statistical software, version 3.5.1. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 100% among service heads across all 122 centers. The total number of radiation oncologists working in these centers is 721, or 15.4 per million population, with considerable variations between regions. Given the national recommendations to have 20 radiation oncologists per million population, there is currently a deficit of 204 specialists. If the 163 upcoming retirements are also taken into account, there will be 367 fewer radiation oncologists than required to meet the 25% increase in indications for radiotherapy projected for 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The classic model for calculating staff needs based on the number of treatments is outdated, and recommendations should be revised to reflect the current reality. A new model should integrate the most complex technological advances and emerging plans in radiotherapy, without neglecting the other activities carried out in radiation oncology services that are not directly linked to patient care.

[Bicycle accidents treated in emergency departments. A multicentre study]. / Accidentes de bicicleta atendidos en los Servicios de Urgencias. Estudio multicéntrico.

OBJECTIVES: To describe epidemiological characteristics, types of injury, prognosis and medical management of bicycle-related Paediatric Emergency Department (ED) visits and to identify potential preventive measures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentred, observational prospective study included all children between 3 and 16 years of age treated for bicycle-related injuries in the Emergency Departments of 15 Spanish Hospitals belonging to the «Unintentional Paediatric Injury Workshop¼ of the Spanish Paediatric Emergency Society between the 1(st) of June 2011 and the 31(st) of May 2012. Characteristics of all ED visits, as well as epidemiological data and accident-related information, were collected. RESULTS: A total of 846 patients were included in the study, with a male predominance (72.9%) and a median age of 9.6 ± 3.6 years. Head injury was the third most common injury (22.3%) and the main cause of admission to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) (68.4%). More than three-quarters (77.9%) of the patients did not wear a helmet, which was significantly associated to a higher incidence of head injury and admission to PICU. Older children (OR 1.063) and bicycle injuries involving motor vehicles (OR 2.431) were identified as independent risk factors for worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Since helmet use reduces up to 88% of central nervous system lesions secondary to head injury, promotion of its use should be the main preventive measure, followed by restriction of bike-riding to cycling areas.

Efficacy of epoetin-beta 30.000 IU/week in correcting anaemia in patients with gastrointestinal tumours subjected to concomitant chemoradiotherapy

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the project was to assess the effectiveness and safety of weekly epoetin-beta (EB) in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) subjected to concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CCTRT). METHODS: In this clinical prospective and multicentre cohort study EB was administered at a dose of 30,000 IU/ week, during CCTRT and in the four weeks thereafter, and suspended if haemoglobin (Hb) increased >2 g/dl or Hb >12-13 g/dl. Effectiveness was defi ned as Hb increase ≥1 g/dl vs. baseline. Time to response, treatment toxicity and transfusion requirements were also assessed. RESULTS: EB was effective in 75.8% of the evaluable population within a median of four weeks from EB initiation, without blood transfusions. Over 80% of all patients remained below the threshold (Hb ≤13 g/dl) and no study drug-related adverse reactions were recorded. CONCLUSION: Weekly EB proved to be effective and well tolerated by patients with GIC subjected to CCTRT (AU)