Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta david muñoz carmona. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta david muñoz carmona. Mostrar todas las entradas

viernes, 24 de mayo de 2013

¿Más es Mejor en Cáncer de Pulmón?

Standard-Dose Radiation Bests High-Dose Radiation in Advanced NSCLC


IMNG Medical Media, 2013 May 16, P Wendling

Standard-dose radiation produced better overall survival and locoregional control than did high-dose radiation when given with concurrent chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage III non–small cell lung cancer in the phase III, randomized RTOG 0617 trial.
Patients on the high dose had a 56% greater risk of death than those on a standard 60 Gy dose. Median overall survival times were 18.5 months with high-dose radiation and 28.7 months with a standard dose (hazard ratio, 1.56;P = .0007).
The risk of local failure also was increased by 37% in the high-dose arm (HR, 1.37; P = .03).
“At this point, there is no clear reason for the poor outcome we experienced on the high-dose arm,” lead author Dr. Jeffrey Bradley said in a press briefing highlighting studies to be presented at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).
The most likely culprit is unreported toxicities, although other possible explanations are increased heart dose, longer duration of therapy, or a combination of these factors, he said.
The results are surprising because conventional thinking has been that higher doses of radiation would more effectively kill the tumor and thereby improve survival.
A phase-III trial in the 1970s established the standard radiation dose of 60 Gy in this setting but, over time, several radiation dose-ranging phase-II studies have reported promising results and improved median survival times with radiation doses up to 74 Gy, explained Dr. Bradley, professor of radiation oncology and chief of the thoracic service at Washington University, St. Louis.
At the same time, improvements in technology such as three-dimensional radiation therapy (RT) and intensity-modulated RT techniques have made RT delivery more precise, allowing organs and tissues sensitive to radiation to receive less radiation while the tumor receives more. This technique was explored in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0617.
“This is a very surprising result, especially when using these special radiation techniques that were designed to be more precise, you would expect that the outcome would be better,” ASCO president Sandra Swain, medical director of the Washington (D.C.) Cancer Institute, told reporters. “This should really put an end to higher-dose treatments, given the better outcomes in the standard-dose arms.”
Dr. Bradley said, “A lot of phase-III trials turn out negative when phase-II trials look good, so I think it was good to do a phase-III trial and get this answered.”
RTOG 0617 randomly assigned 464 patients with newly diagnosed, unresected stage-III non–small cell lung cancer to conformal RT to 60 Gy, five times per week for 6 weeks or to 74 Gy five times per week for 7.5 weeks. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel (Taxol) and carboplatin, with a second randomization for patients to receive consolidation chemotherapy with or without cetuximab (Erbitux).
Among the 419 patients available for analysis at 18 months, local failure rates were 25% with standard-dose RT and 34.3% with high-dose RT (P = .03, as noted above), Dr. Bradley reported.
Median 18-month overall survival rates were 67% with the standard radiation dose vs. 54% with the high dose.
Median overall survival times in both groups were higher than expected, but “the overall survival benefit of 60 Gy is independent of the cetuximab question,” he said. Data from that portion of the trial are expected to be reported in 2014.
Finally, the only significant difference in physician-reported side effects was a slightly higher rate of esophagitis in the high-dose arms (21% vs. 7%).
Full details of RTOG 0617 (abstract 7501) will be reported 10:15 a.m. on June 4 at ASCO’s annual meeting in Chicago.
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Bradley reported having no relevant financial disclosures. A coauthor reported research funding from the NCI.


lunes, 4 de marzo de 2013

Patterns of care and outcome for patients with glioblastoma diagnosed during 2008–2010 in Spain




    • Francesc Graus
    • Jordi Bruna
    • Javier Pardo
    • Domingo Escudero
    • Dolores Vilas,
    • Inés Barceló
    • Marta Brell
    • Carmen Pascual
    • José A. Crespo
    • Elena Erro,
    • Juan C. García-Romero
    • Jordi Estela
    • Juan Martino
    • Almudena García-Castaño,
    • Elena Mata,
    • Manuela Lema
    • Miguel Gelabert
    • Rafel Fuentes
    • Pedro Pérez
    • Arancha Manzano
    • Jesús Aguas
    • Antonio Belenguer
    • Ana Simón,
    • Iván Henríquez,
    • Mauricio Murcia
    • Rosa Vivanco,
    • Iñigo Rojas-Marcos
    • David Muñoz-Carmona,
    • Inmaculada Navas
    • Pablo de Andrés
    • Gemma Mas
    • Miguel Gil
    • and Eugènia Verger. 


Service of Neurology (F.G.) and Radiotherapy, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona (E.V.); Service of Neurology (J.B.), Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat. Service of Neurology, Hospital Quirón, Madrid (J.P.); Service of Neurology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona (D.E., D.V.); Service of Neurology (I.B.), Neurosurgery, Hospital Son Espases, Mallorca (M.B.); Service of Neurology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza (C.P., J.A.C.); Service of Neurology (E.E.), Neurosurgery, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona (J.C.G.-R.); Service of Neurology, Hospital Parc Taulí, Sabadell (J.E.); Service of Neurosurgery (J.M.), Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander (A.G.-C., E.M.); Service of Neurology(M.L.), Neurosurgery (M.G.), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela; Service of Radiotherapy (R.F.), Hospital Universitari Josep Trueta,GironaService of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid (P.P., A.M.);Service of Neurosurgery, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza (J.A.);Service of Neurology, Hospital General de Castelló, Castelló (A.B., A.S.); Service of Radiotherapy, Hospital Universitari de Sant Joan, Reus (I.H., M.M.); Service of Neurology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona (R.V.); Service of Neurology (I.R.-M.),Radiotherapy, Hospital General Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva (D.M.-C.); Service of Neurology (I.N.), Neurosurgery, Fundación Jiménez Díaz. Madrid (P.A.); Service of Neurology, Hospital Francesc de Borja, Gandía (G.M.); Service of Medical Oncology, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain (M.G.)
Background To assess management patterns and outcome in patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treated during 2008–2010 in Spain.
Methods Retrospective analysis of clinical, therapeutic, and survival data collected through filled questionnaires from patients with histologically confirmed GBM diagnosed in 19 Spanish hospitals.
Results We identified 834 patients (23% aged >70 years). Surgical resection was achieved in 66% of patients, although the extent of surgery was confirmed by postoperative MRI in only 41%. There were major postoperative complications in 14% of patients, and age was the only independent predictor (Odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.01–1.05; P = .006). After surgery, 57% received radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide, 21% received other regimens, and 22% were not further treated. In patients treated with surgical resection, RT, and chemotherapy (n = 396), initiation of RT ≤42 days was associated with longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.8; 95% CI, 0.64–0.99; P = .042) but not with overall survival (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62–1.00; P = .055). Only 32% of patients older than 70 years received RT with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. The median survival in this group was 10.8 months (95% CI, 6.8–14.9 months), compared with 17.0 months (95% CI, 15.5–18.4 months; P = .034) among younger patients with GBM treated with the same regimen.
Conclusions In a community setting, 57% of all patients with GBM and only 32% of older patients received RT with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. In patients with surgical resection who were eligible for chemoradiation, initiation of RT ≤42 days was associated with better progression-free survival.

jueves, 17 de enero de 2013

Reasons why physicians do not have discussions about poor prognosis, why it matters, and what can be improved

JOURNAL CLINICAL ONCOLOGY (2012)


Reasons why physicians do not have discussions about poor prognosis, why it matters, and what can be improved

Mack JW, Smith TJ.
En una época como la que vivimos, con una enorme facilidad para el acceso a la información tanto por parte de los profesionales como de los médicos, parecería sensato creer que la transparencia y honestidad absoluta en la transmisión de toda la información acerca de su proceso al paciente debiera de ser la norma.

Foto David Muñoz Carmona©. Si usas la foto anota la referencia
Sin embargo, y con mayor incidencia en el campo de la oncología, los médicos continúan siendo reacios a discutir con el paciente acerca de su situación con total franqueza. Varias son las razones que llevan a los oncólogos a evitar discutir con sus pacientes sobre el mal pronóstico de su enfermedad, aunque los autores de este interesante estudio las han agrupado en 5 grandes categorías. Además de exponer con crudeza estas situaciones, los autores se encargan de proporcionar argumentos que rebaten, una por una y aportando evidencia de estudios publicados, estas barreras que muchos oncólogos establecen en la comunicación directa con sus pacientes:

1. "Riesgo de depresión de los pacientes": los autores sostienen lo contrario, que dar a los pacientes una información honesta, veraz y completa puede permitir, a ellos y a sus familiares, sobrellevar mejor la enfermedad.

2. "La verdad mata la esperanza: de acuerdo a este análisis, la esperanza puede ser mantenida por los pacientes, incluso después de ser conscientes de las escasas o nulas posibilidades de curación, ya que la esperanza era un concepto inherente a la condición humana con independencia del conocimiento que el paciente tuviera de su enfermedad.

3. "Los cuidados paliativos reducen la supervivencia": los autores revisan varios estudios que demuestran que la supervivencia es igual o mejor cuando se administran cuidados paliativos.

4. "Existen reparos y barreras culturales para mantener estas conversaciones": los autores consideran que, si bien es cierto que los pacientes de diferentes orígenes étnicos y culturales a menudo tienen diferentes preferencias para obtener información, este hecho no debe bastar al médico para decidir obviar información acerca de un pronóstico infausto. Más aún, el oncólogo debe de informarse acerca de las peculiaridades culturales de sus pacientes y elegir la mejor forma de abordar, de manera clara y concreta, un tema como este.

5. "El pronóstico real de la enfermedad es difícil de predecir": si bien esto es cierto hasta cierto punto no debe ser utilizado como una excusa. Explicar y detallar un pronóstico razonable o el rango de posibles resultados puede ayudar a los pacientes a afrontar el futuro inmediato de su evolución.

La conclusión final de los autores tras esta revisión es que para los oncólogos que participan directamente en la atención al paciente con cáncer, la formación en habilidades de comunicación encaminadas a la transmisión honesta, clara y veraz de las malas noticias al paciente y sus familiares debiera ser obligatoria desde el primer momento de su aprendizaje en Oncología. Evitar hablar de malas noticias tiene consecuencias graves. Según los autores, los pacientes pierden tiempo de disfrutar con sus familias y tienen más riesgo de pasar más tiempo en el hospital, además de que hablar acerca de un pronostico malo a corto o muy corto plazo puede ayudar a iniciar precozmente medidas de soporte que, aunque no aumenten la supervivencia total,, si pueden mejorar notablemente la calidad de vida de los pacientes e incluso reducir los costes de la atención.

domingo, 18 de noviembre de 2012

Un médico sevillano edita una guía de Urgencias para tratar casos de cáncer.




El manual de Oncología ofrece las claves para mejorar la asistencia a enfermos que sufren tumores y está dirigido a los medicos de Atención Primaria y a los MIR.







Diario de Sevilla 18 de Noviembre de 2012

sábado, 10 de noviembre de 2012

Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy and continuous low-dose temozolomide in patients with recurrent or progressive malignant gliomas


Giuseppe Minniti • Claudia Scaringi • Vitaliana De Sanctis • Gaetano Lanzetta •
Teresa Falco • Domenica Di Stefano • Vincenzo esposito • Riccardo Maurizi Enrici
J Neurooncol Received: 23 August 2012 / Accepted: 31 October 2012



To evaluate the efficacy of reirradiation and systemic chemotherapy as salvage treatment in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. Between May 2006 and December 2011, 54 patients with recurrent malignant glioma received hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) plus systemic therapy at University of Rome Sapienza, Sant’ Andrea Hospital. All patients had Karnofsky performance score C60 and were previously treated with standard conformal RT (60 Gy) with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) up to 12 cycles. Thirtyeight patients had a GBM and 16 patients had a grade 3 glioma. The median time interval between primary RT and reirradiation was 15.5 months. At the time of recurrence all patients received HSRT (30 Gy in 6-Gy fractions) plus concomitant TMZ (75 mg/m2/day) followed by continuous TMZ at 50 mg/m2 everyday up to 1 year or until progression. Median overall survival after HSRT was 12.4 months, and the 12- and 24-month survival rates were 53 and 16 %, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6 months, and the 12- and 24-month PFS rates were 24 and 10 %, respectively. KPS [70 (P = 0.04) and grade 3 glioma were independent favourable prognostic factors for survival. In general chemoradiation regimen was well tolerated with relatively low treatment-related toxicity. HSRT plus concomitant TMZ followed by continuous dose-intense TMZ is a feasible treatment option associated with survival benefits and low risk of complications in selected patients with recurrent malignant glioma. The potential advantages of combined chemoradiation schedules in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas need to be explored in future studies.