Estrategias de tratamiento en la metástasis vertebral. Necesidad de comités multidisciplinarios desde la perspectiva del cirujano. Narración de la literatura / Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literatura

Las mejoras en el diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer han mejorado la supervivencia. Secundariamente también aumenta el número de estos pacientes que presentan una metástasis vertebral y el número con alguna morbilidad en relación con estas metástasis. Fractura vertebral, compresión radicular o lesión medular causan un deterioro de su calidad de vida. El objetivo en el tratamiento de las mismas ha de ser el control del dolor, mantenimiento función neurológica y de la estabilidad vertebral, teniendo presente que en muchos casos será un tratamiento paliativo.El tratamiento de estas complicaciones presenta un enfoque multidisciplinario, radiólogos, radiólogos intervencionistas, oncólogos y radioterapeutas, cirujanos de raquis, pero también Unidad de Rehabilitación o Unidad de Dolor. Recientes trabajos muestran que un enfoque multidisciplinario de estos pacientes puede mejorar calidad de vida e incluso pronóstico.En el presente trabajo se realiza una revisión y lectura de la bibliografía sobre el manejo multidisciplinario de estos pacientes.(AU)

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increases. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life.The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment.The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis.In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.(AU)

[Translated article] Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literature / Estrategias de tratamiento en la metástasis vertebral. Necesidad de comités multidisciplinarios desde la perspectiva del cirujano. Narración de la literatura

Las mejoras en el diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer han mejorado la supervivencia. Secundariamente también aumenta el número de estos pacientes que presentan una metástasis vertebral y el número con alguna morbilidad en relación con estas metástasis. Fractura vertebral, compresión radicular o lesión medular causan un deterioro de su calidad de vida. El objetivo en el tratamiento de las mismas ha de ser el control del dolor, mantenimiento función neurológica y de la estabilidad vertebral, teniendo presente que en muchos casos será un tratamiento paliativo.El tratamiento de estas complicaciones presenta un enfoque multidisciplinario, radiólogos, radiólogos intervencionistas, oncólogos y radioterapeutas, cirujanos de raquis, pero también Unidad de Rehabilitación o Unidad de Dolor. Recientes trabajos muestran que un enfoque multidisciplinario de estos pacientes puede mejorar calidad de vida e incluso pronóstico.En el presente trabajo se realiza una revisión y lectura de la bibliografía sobre el manejo multidisciplinario de estos pacientes.(AU)

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increases. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life.The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment.The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis.In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.(AU)

[Translated article] Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literature.

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increase. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life. The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment. The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis. In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.

Treatment strategies in vertebral metastasis. Need for multidisciplinary committees from the perspective of the surgeon. Narration of literatura. / Estrategias de tratamiento en la metástasis vertebral. Necesidad de comités multidisciplinarios desde la perspectiva del cirujano. Narración de la literatura.

Improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment have improved survival. Secondarily, the number of patients who present a vertebral metastasis and the number with some morbidity in relation to these metastases also increases. Vertebral fracture, root compression or spinal cord injury cause a deterioration of their quality of life. The objective in the treatment of the vertebral metastasis must be the control of pain, maintenance of neurological function and vertebral stability, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be a palliative treatment. The treatment of these complications needs a multidisciplinary approach, radiologists, interventional radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists, spine surgeons, but also rehabilitation or pain units. Recent studies show that a multidisciplinary approach of these patients can improve quality of life and even prognosis. In the present article, a review and reading of the literature on the multidisciplinary management of these patients is carried out.

GEIS-SEHOP clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of rhabdomyosarcoma.

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most frequent soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in children and adolescents. In Spain the annual incidence is 4.4 cases per million children < 14 years. It is an uncommon neoplasm in adults, but 40% of RMS are diagnosed in patients over 20 years of age, representing 1% of all STS in this age group. RMS can appear anywhere in the body, with some sites more frequently affected including head and neck, genitourinary system and limbs. Assessment of a patient with suspicion of RMS includes imaging studies (MRI, CT, PET-CT) and biopsy. All patients with RMS should receive chemotherapy, either at diagnosis in advanced or metastatic stages, or after initial resection in early local stages. Local control includes surgery and/or radiotherapy depending on site, stage, histology and response to chemotherapy. This guide provides recommendations for diagnosis, staging and treatment of this neoplasm.

Comments on "SEOM guidelines for endometrial cancer"

No disponible

Out-of-protocol concurrent use of cisplatin and radiation therapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: feasibility and survival.

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: We assessed the feasibility, response rates, and overall survival of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy during radiation therapy on an out-of-protocol basis. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive newly diagnosed untreated patients with locally advanced cervical cancer who received chemoradiation between 1999 and 2003 were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment consisted in external beam radiation followed by one 137-cessium intracavitary application. Cisplatin was administered for six weeks during external beam radiation. RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated, although 52 patients presented some degree of acute adverse toxicity (gastrointestinal 65%, hematological 48%, genitourinary 10%). The 3-year survival rate was 61.8% (95% CI 54.5-69.0), with a mean 41.8 months (95% CI 35.7-48.3). Overall survival after adjusting by FIGO Stage IB2-IIA and IIB-IVA was 73.9% and 50%, respectively (p = 0.1839). Overall survival according to Stages IB2-IIb and III-IVA was 74.8% and 34.9%, respectively (P = 0.0376). CONCLUSION: In patients with locally advanced cervical cancer, adding a weekly regimen of cisplatin to standard pelvic radiation in an out-of-protocol basis is feasible, effective, and showed no unexpected toxicity.

Faecal DNA and calprotectin as biomarkers of acute intestinal toxicity in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Acute intestinal toxicity is a frequent complication that may lead to interruption of treatment in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. Reliable, non-invasive biological markers to evidence their severity are not yet available. AIM: To test faecal DNA and calprotectin as potential biomarkers of intestinal toxicity caused by pelvic radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients were categorized according to the location of the cancer as nonrectal (n = 25) and rectal (n = 27). Four stool samples were collected at weeks w0, w3, w5 (end of radiotherapy) and w7. Faecal DNA was determined by quantitative PCR and calprotectin by ELISA. Intestinal toxicity was scored according to the Common Toxicity Criteria. RESULTS: In the nonrectal group, acute diarrhoea toxicity was present in 80% of patients, faecal DNA increased 10-fold during radiotherapy (1.5 x 10(3) copies/mg dry weight, 9.5 x 10(2)-8.8 x 10(3) at w0, median and interquartile range vs. 1.3 x 10(4), 1.9 x 10(3)-3.9 x 10(4) at w5, P < 0.01), but was not recovered at w7 (3.4 x 10(3), 1.5 x 10(3)-4.1 x 10(4)) and calprotectin doubled during treatment at w3 and w5. No significant changes in faecal markers were found in the rectal group. CONCLUSION: Faecal excretion of human DNA and calprotectin increased during pelvic radiotherapy treatment, and may be a good objective biomarker of intestinal damage in nonrectal cancer patients.

Long-term neuropsychologic sequelae of childhood leukemia: comparison of two CNS prophylactic regimens.

To compare the late neuropsychologic toxicities of CNS prophylaxis in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), a transversal assessment was performed in two groups of ALL patients and two control groups. The ALL patients had received one of the following CNS prophylaxes: cranial irradiation, 24 Gy and i.t. MTX 10 mg/m2, 6 doses (RT group, n = 25) or i.t. Ara-C 30 mg/m2 and i.t. MTX 10 mg/m2, 10 doses (ChT group, n = 29). The two control groups were: Siblings (Sb, n = 24) and Solid Tumors (ST, n = 22). Intelligence Quotient (IQ), memory, learning, attention and frontal tasks were studied. Comparative analyses between ChT and RT showed no differences in any of the tests. When RT was compared with ST or Sb, RT showed a 10-point lower mean IQ (p greater than 0.05). The results of ChT versus ST or versus Sb were worse in the ChT group. In many tests the differences were statistically significant. Analyses of the 54 ALL patients compared with the 46 controls showed significant differences in all tests except verbal memory and verbal learning. Neuropsychological sequelae of CNS prophylaxis are discussed, and in particular, the role of cranial radiotherapy and i.t. Ara-C. We conclude that prophylactic CNS therapy may cause cognitive dysfunctions.