An internally validated new clinical and inflammation-based prognostic score for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is a standard treatment for patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), although the clinical benefit is heterogeneous between different pts groups. Among novel prognostic factors, a low baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (bNLR) and early-onset diarrhoea have been linked with a better prognosis. PURPOSE: To identify prognostic factors in pts with aHCC treated with 1st-line sorafenib and to develop a new prognostic score to guide management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 145 pts bNLR, overall toxicity, early toxicity rates and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for OS was performed. The prognostic score was calculated from the coefficients found in the Cox analysis. ROC curves and pseudoR2 index were used for internal validation. Discrimination ability and calibration were tested by Harrel's c-index (HCI) and Akaike criteria (AIC). RESULTS: The optimal bNLR cut-off for the prediction of OS was 4 (AUC 0.62). Independent prognostic factors in multivariate analysis for OS were performance status (PS) (p < .0001), Child-Pugh (C-P) score (p = 0.005), early-onset diarrhoea (p = 0.006) and BNLR (0.011). The prognostic score based on these four variables was found efficient (HCI = 0.659; AIC = 1.180). Four risk groups for OS could be identified: a very low-risk (median OS = 48.6 months), a low-risk (median OS = 11.6 months), an intermediate-risk (median OS = 8.3 months) and a high-risk group (median OS = 4.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: PS and C-P score were the main prognostic factors for OS, followed by early-onset diarrhoea and bNLR. We identified four risk groups for OS depending on these parameters. This prognostic model could be useful for patient stratification, but an external validation is needed.

SEOM Clinical Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (2016).

Esophageal cancer (EC) is an aggressive tumor that represents the 6th most common cause of cancer death worldwide. The estimated incidence in Spain is 2090 cases/year. Two main pathological subtypes exist, squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. The main differences between them are localization and underlying factors which are the principal cause of the recent incidence changes observed in west countries. Staging techniques and treatment options which combine surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, reflected the high complexity of the EC management. An undeniably multidisciplinary approach is, therefore, required. In this guide, we review the status of current diagnosis and treatment, define evidence and propose recommendations.

SEOM Clinical Guideline for gastrointestinal sarcomas (GIST) (2016).

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the digestive tract, and this disease has served as a paradigmatic model for successful rational development of targeted therapies. The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors with activity against KIT/PDGFRA in both localized and advanced stages has remarkably improved the survival in a disease formerly deemed resistant to all systemic therapies. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) guidelines provide a multidisciplinary and updated consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of GIST patients. We strongly encourage that the managing of these patients should be performed within multidisciplinary teams in reference centers.

Clinical guideline SEOM: hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Surveillance with abdominal ultrasound every 6 months should be offered to patients with a high risk of developing HCC: Child-Pugh A-B cirrhotic patients, all cirrhotic patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation, high-risk HBV chronic hepatitis patients (higher viral load, viral genotype or Asian or African ancestry) and patients with chronic hepatitis C and bridging fibrosis. Accurate diagnosis, staging and functional hepatic reserve are crucial for the optimal therapeutic approach. Characteristic findings on dynamic CT/MR of arterial hyperenhancement with "washout" in the portal venous or delayed phase are highly specific and sensitive for a diagnosis of HCC in patients with previous cirrhosis, but a confirmed histopathologic diagnosis should be done in patients without previous evidence of chronic hepatic disease. BCLC classification is the most common staging system used in Western countries. Surgical procedures, local therapies and systemic treatments should be discussed and planned for each patient by a multidisciplinary team according to the stage, performance status, liver function and comorbidities. Surgical interventions remain as the only curative procedures but both local and systemic approaches may increase survival and should be offered to patients without contraindications.

Carcinoma of unknown primary site: development in a single institution of a prognostic model based on clinical and serum variables.

PURPOSE: To identify clinical and biologic variables with significant impact on survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUP) and to develop a simple prognostic model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, univariate and multivariate prognostic factors analyses were conducted in a population of 100 patients with CUP. Patients with features requiring well defined treatments had previously been excluded. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) was significantly related to the following pretreatment adverse prognostic clinical factors: a poor performance status (2 or 3), weight loss more than 10% in the last six months, the presence of liver metastases and more than two metastatic sites. Two biological parameters predicted a significantly shorter survival: elevated serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and of lactate dehydrogenase. In the multivariate analysis, only two independent adverse prognostic parameters were retained: a poor performance status and the presence of liver metastases. We developed a prognostic model for OS based on the following subgroups: good prognosis (PS 0 or 1 and absence of liver metastases), intermediate prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases) and poor prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases). Median OS for the three groups was 10.8, 4 and 1.9 months respectively, p<0.0001. CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic model using performance status and presence of liver metastases was developed. It allowed the assignment of patients into three subgroups with different outcomes. Treatment strategies could be adapted for each subgroup. We think that this prognostic model could be useful and should be validated in other patient series.