SEOM clinical guideline on hereditary colorectal cancer (2019).

In the last 2 decades, clinical genetics on hereditary colorectal syndromes has shifted from just a molecular characterization of the different syndromes to the estimation of the individual risk of cancer and appropriate risk reduction strategies. In the last years, new specific therapies for some subgroups of patients have emerged as very effective alternatives. At the same time, germline multigene panel testing by next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has become the new gold standard for molecular genetics.

Psychological impact of multigene cancer panel testing in patients with a clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer across Spain.

OBJECTIVE: Patients' psychological reactions to multigene cancer panel testing might differ compared with the single-gene testing reactions because of the complexity and uncertainty associated with the different possible results. Understanding patients' preferences and psychological impact of multigene panel testing is important to adapt the genetic counselling model. METHODS: One hundred eighty-seven unrelated patients with clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer undergoing a 25-gene panel test completed questionnaires after pretest genetic counselling and at 1 week, 3 months, and 12 months after results to elicit their preferences regarding results disclosure and to measure their cancer worry and testing-specific distress and uncertainty. RESULTS: A pathogenic variant was identified in 38 patients (34 high penetrance and 4 moderate penetrance variants), and 54 patients had at least one variant of uncertain significance. Overall, cancer panel testing was not associated with an increase in cancer worry after results disclosure (P value = .87). Twelve months after results, carriers of a moderate penetrance variant had higher distress and uncertainty scores compared with carriers of high penetrance variants. Cancer worry prior to genetic testing predicted genetic testing specific distress after results, especially at long term (P value <.001). Most of the patients reported the wish to know all genetic results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patients can psychologically cope with cancer panel testing, but distress and uncertainty observed in carriers of moderate penetrance cancer variants in this cohort warrant further research.

Clinical guideline seom: hereditary colorectal cancer.

Genetic mutations have been identified as the cause of inherited cancer risk in some colon cancer; these mutations are estimated to account for only 5-6 % of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases overall. Up to 25-30 % of patients have a family history of CRC that suggests a hereditary component, common exposures among family members, or a combination of both. Cancers in people with a hereditary predisposition typically occur at an earlier age than in sporadic cases. A predisposition to CRC may include a predisposition to other cancers, such as endometrial cancer. We describe genetics, current diagnosis and management of CRC hereditary syndromes pointing to a multidisciplinary approach to achieve the best results in patients and family outcomes.

Effectiveness of daily versus non-daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy: a multivariate analysis of data from current practice.

We conducted a multicentre, retrospective, observational study including patients with solid tumours (excluding breast cancer) that received granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and chemotherapy. We investigated the effectiveness of daily vs. non-daily G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim) adjusting by potential confounders. The study included 391 patients (211 daily G-CSF; 180 pegfilgrastim), from whom 47.3% received primary prophylaxis (PP) (57.8% pegfilgrastim), 26.3% secondary prophylaxis (SP: initiation after cycle 1 and no reactive treatment in any cycle) (51.5% pegfilgrastim) and 26.3% reactive treatment (19.4% pegfilgrastim). Only 42.2% of patients with daily G-CSF and 46.2% with pegfilgrastim initiated prophylaxis within 72 h after chemotherapy, and only 10.5% of patients with daily G-CSF received it for ≥ 7 days. In the multivariate models, daily G-CSF was associated with higher risk of grade 3-4 neutropenia (G3-4N) vs. pegfilgrastim [odds ratio (OR): 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.004-2.97]. Relative to SP, PP protected against G3-4N (OR for SP vs. PP: 6.0, 95%CI: 3.2-11.4) and febrile neutropenia (OR: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.1-8.8), and was associated to less chemotherapy dose delays and reductions (OR for relative dose intensity <85% for SP vs. PP: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.7-5.4) and higher response rate (OR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.2-3.7). Data suggest that pegfilgrastim, compared with a daily G-CSF, and PP, compared with SP, could be more effective in preventing neutropenia and its related events in the clinical practice.

[Undifferentiated small cell tumor of the thoracopulmonary region]. / Tumor indiferenciado de células pequeñas de la región toracopulmonar.

The group of rounded small-cell tumors include different neoplasias involving different therapies; we can name neuroblastoma, Ewing' sarcoma, embrionary rhabdomyosarcoma, lymphoma and other pathology such as Askin's tumor or small cell tumor of the thorax area. Based on microscopic and immunohistochemistry findings, it is suggested that it originates from the neural crest or pluri-potential cells from the neuroectodermy. This has a very aggressive behaviour and is usually resistant to oncologic therapies.

[Thymomas]. / Timomas.

Thymomas are non-frequent neoplasias which are interesting because of their special association with the immune system pathology; although the pathogenic relationship has yet to be confirmed. A literature review is carried out on clinical aspects, prognosis and treatment, basically chemotherapy in advanced cases. Although they are classically categorized as benign, they are nevertheless considerably aggressive and maintain a low response to most active oncology treatment.