This is a call to oncologists for action

Cancer cases are growing in an exponential way, likewise the prices of new cancer drugs. Continuing in this way, in the near future, it will be impossible to provide optimum care for all cancer patients. Therefore, it is important to establish mechanisms that enable the National Health Systems to provide the best options of treatment, either through the elaboration of decision-binding frameworks or through other initiatives that guarantee the best quality care for all oncology patients to overcome, in the best possible way, this difficult illness. Here, we review current proposals that have been established by different cancer organizations worldwide, their similarities, their differences and whether they are helpful in a real clinical setting. Facing present reality and despite these organizations’ huge efforts, these proposals are not being implemented at all and it does not seem feasible that they will in the short run. In the same way, we support and argue why oncologists should have a crucial and a preponderant role to establish the best way of guaranteeing an equal access to the latest oncology care

No disponible

This is a call to oncologists for action.

Cancer cases are growing in an exponential way, likewise the prices of new cancer drugs. Continuing in this way, in the near future, it will be impossible to provide optimum care for all cancer patients. Therefore, it is important to establish mechanisms that enable the National Health Systems to provide the best options of treatment, either through the elaboration of decision-binding frameworks or through other initiatives that guarantee the best quality care for all oncology patients to overcome, in the best possible way, this difficult illness. Here, we review current proposals that have been established by different cancer organizations worldwide, their similarities, their differences and whether they are helpful in a real clinical setting. Facing present reality and despite these organizations' huge efforts, these proposals are not being implemented at all and it does not seem feasible that they will in the short run. In the same way, we support and argue why oncologists should have a crucial and a preponderant role to establish the best way of guaranteeing an equal access to the latest oncology care.

Multicenter phase II study of oxaliplatin and sorafenib in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma after failure of cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine treatment. A GEMCAD study.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine (CF) are standard first- line treatment in advanced gastric cancer, but no second-line treatment has yet been established. We present a phase II study in which we evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of Sorafenib (S), and Oxaliplatin as second-line therapy. METHODS: Patients with progressive gastric adenocarcinoma after CF- first-line, ECOG 0-2, and measurable disease were included. The primary objective was PFS. Treatment doses were Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m²/3 weeks and Sorafenib 800 mg/bid/d. RESULTS: We included 40 patients. CR was 2.5% and SD was 47.2%. Grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (9.8%), thrombocytopenia (7.3%), neurotoxicity (4.9%) and diarrhea (4.9%). Median PFS was 3 months (95%CI: 2.3-4.1) and median OS was 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.2-9.6). Time to progression (TTP) to first line therapy was a prognosis factor. Median OS was 9.7 months when time-to-progression during first-line chemotherapy was >6 months and 5.6 m when it was <6 months (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Time-to-progression under a CF-based first-line therapy determines subgroups of GC patients with different prognosis. The combination of Oxaliplatin-Sorafenib in advanced GC patients previously treated with CF appears safe, but our results do not support the implementation of a phase III trial.

Phase II clinical trial with gemcitabine and paclitaxel sequential monotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (SLCG 01-04)

BACKGROUND: In advanced-stage (IIIB or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), combination chemotherapy has demonstrated response rates of 20% and a 1-year survival rate of 30%. We conducted a multicentre, open-label, nonrandomised phase II trial to determine the efficacy and tolerability of sequential monotherapy with gemcitabine followed by paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2002 and July 2004, the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) conducted a study in which 34 patients with advanced (stage IIIB or IV) NSCLC received 1200 mg/m(2) of i.v. gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for a total of 3 cycles followed by 100 mg/m(2) of weekly i.v. paclitaxel for a maximum of 8 weeks. If objective response or stable disease was achieved, 70 mg/m(2) of weekly i.v. paclitaxel was maintained until disease progression was evident or toxic effects were intolerable. Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) analysis was performed. Baseline levels of serum VEGF, EGFR, telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) and K-ras mutations were analysed. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. RESULTS: The median age of the 34 patients who were enrolled was 67 years (range 46-77), but later 8 patients were excluded; 78.8% were men, 81.8% had performance status 1 and also 81.8% had metastatic disease at diagnosis. The objective response rate was 28% (95% CI, 14.2-47.8); the median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 2.1-12.3) and the median time to progression (TTP) was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.5-5.3). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related haematological toxicities were observed in 6 patients. Patients with lower baseline serum VEGF levels had significantly longer survival. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential therapy with gemcitabine followed by paclitaxel was well tolerated with a low proportion of grade 3 or 4 adverse events, the absence of unexpected toxicity and with an improvement in quality of life. Unfortunately, the response rate did not meet the minimally required rate of 20% and the study was prematurely closed. VEGF was identified as a poor prognostic factor for TTP and survival (AU)

Oncology outside hospital: a new experience for the benefit of longer survivors

In May 2007, the Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia created the position of "Liaison Oncologist". The holder of this position is responsible for coordinating specialised and primary hospital care in the geographic area of Valencia known as Health Care Department 9 to reduce the waiting time between cancer diagnosis and treatment. In this article we describe the implementation of the innovative proposal of the Liaison Oncologist's Consultation Clinic, which, apart from speeding up and directing diagnostic processes, facilitates access to treatment, prevents duplication of consultations and exploratory procedures by establishing therapeutic plans (preferential channels), gives continuity to diagnostic and therapeutic mechanisms, and permits active follow-up of patients who have finished treatment. An analysis of the results obtained shows that the clinic has allowed us to integrate the various aspects of medical oncology into one system and make it available to patients and primary and specialised care professionals. This system provides the patient with the highest quality of integrated health care, ensures the availability of continued health care to long-term survivors and establishes preferential channels between primary care and specialised cancer care to achieve a quick diagnosis (AU)

Analysis of the elderly patient population in a tertiary-care university hospital.

A progressively ageing population and the high association between advanced age and cancer has resulted in an increased interest in the field of geriatric oncology with the objective being a more effective diagnosis and treatment of these patients. We performed an epidemiological analysis on an intent-to-treat of elderly population within our healthcare unit. This is a retrospective study of all patients attended in our Medical Oncology Department during the year 2002. A total 667 patients were assessed, 42% older than 70 years of age. The most frequent tumour sites were lung, colorectal and breast. The most frequent histology was adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis in advanced stages was significantly higher in older age group (76% vs. 59%). The use of symptom-control follow-up and palliative-care, compared with radio- and chemo-therapy, was higher in older age group. However, we observed no statistically significant differences with respect to inclusion in clinical trials. In conclusion, the elderly represents an important percentage of patients receiving cancer care. The distributions by sites and histology types are similar in both groups of age. Although the election of palliative treatment is more frequent in elderly population, the most frequently used treatments in both groups, were radiotherapy and chemotherapy. We didn't observe any significant differences about the inclusion in clinical trials.

Venous thromboembolic disease in cancer. Optimisation of the use of antithrombotic agents.

Venous thromoboembolism is one of the most common complications in cancer patients and may have serious consequences. At present, most clinical oncologists report using thromboprophylaxis in less than 5% of patients. One of the possible reasons for this limited use is the lack of oncology specific guidelines. In effect, while there are excellent guidelines for optimising the use of antithrombotic agents to prevent and treat thromboembolism, they must be adapted to the concrete context of cancer patients. The present review explores how different situations affect cancer patients and their risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and evaluates the situations in which antithrombotic agents should be administered to treat and prevent VTE.

Venous thromboembolic disease in cancer. Optimisation of the use of antithrombotic agents

Venous thromoboembolism is one of the most common complications in cancer patients and may have serious consequences. At present, most clinical oncologists report using thromboprophylaxis in less than 5% of patients. One of the possible reasons for this limited use is the lack of oncology specific guidelines. In effect, while there are excellent guidelines for optimising the use of antithrombotic agents to prevent and treat thromboembolism, they must be adapted to the concrete context of cancer patients. The present review explores how different situations affect cancer patients and their risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and evaluates the situations in which antithrombotic agents should be administered to treat and prevent VTE (AU)