ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer causes approximately 25% of all cancer deaths. Despite its relevance, few studies have analyzed differences by sex at the time of diagnosis in terms of symptoms, stage, age or smoking status. We aim to assess if there are differences between men and women on these characteristics at diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed the Thoracic Tumour Registry (TTR), sponsored by the Spanish Lung Cancer Group using a case-series design. This is a nationwide registry of lung cancer cases which started recruitment in 2016. For each case included, clinicians fulfilled an electronic record registering demographic data, symptoms, exposure to lung cancer risk factors, and treatment received in detail. We compared men and women using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 13,590 participants took part in this study, 25.6% women. Women were 4 years younger than men (64 vs. 69), and men had smoked more frequently. Adenocarcinoma was the most frequent histological type in both sexes. Stage IV at diagnosis was 50.8% in women compared to 43.6% in men. Weight loss/anorexia/asthenia was the most frequent symptom in both sexes and there were no differences in the number of symptoms at diagnosis. There were no relevant differences in the frequency or number of symptoms by sex when non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were analyzed separately. Smoking status did not appear to cause different lung cancer presentation in men compared to women. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be no differences in lung cancer characteristics by sex at the time at diagnosis on stage, specific symptoms or number of symptoms.
ABSTRACT
Introducción: El dolor sigue siendo en la actualidad un problema no resuelto en los pacientes con cáncer. A pesar de los avances en el tratamiento del dolor en los últimos años, persisten lagunas que dificultan un tratamiento global, como es el caso del dolor irruptivo oncológico (DIO). Objetivos: Evaluar la prevalencia de DIO de una muestra de pacientes ingresados en un servicio de oncología médica, analizar si el dolor era el principal motivo de ingreso en estos pacientes, así como determinar si existe un infradiagnóstico y, por tanto, un infratratamiento en los mismos previamente al ingreso. Métodos: Estudio observacional prospectivo. Se reclutaron los pacientes de forma consecutiva, independientemente del motivo de ingreso. Las variables analizadas en relación con el dolor irruptivo fueron las siguientes: presencia de dolor irruptivo según el algoritmo de Davies; semejanza de los episodios de dolor irruptivo entre sí y respecto al dolor basal; número de crisis de dolor a lo largo del día y a lo largo de la semana; escala visual analógica del dolor irruptivo; tiempo desde el inicio del dolor hasta su máxima intensidad medida en los siguientes rangos: < 5 min, 5-30 min, > 30 min; la duración de los episodios: < 5 min, 5-30 min, > 30 min; desencadenantes del dolor irruptivo (incidental, espontáneo); percepción individual de la alteración en la calidad de vida y efectividad de los fármacos utilizados. Resultados: Se incluyeron un total de 115 pacientes. En la muestra analizada el 33,9 % de los pacientes presentaron dolor irruptivo, de ellos el 95 % recibían tratamiento con opioides mayores, pero en solo el 56 % de los casos se asociaron a opioides de liberación ultrarrápida. Conclusión: El manejo de los pacientes con DIO continúa siendo un reto a día de hoy. Cerca de la mitad de los pacientes con dolor irruptivo no habían recibido tratamiento adecuado en nuestro estudio y, por tanto, probablemente no estaban bien caracterizados. (AU)
Background: Pain is often inadequately treated in patients with cancer. Although in recent years there have been major advances in the treatment of pain, there are still gaps for a global treatment, such as breakthrouth cancer pain (BCP). Objectives: The main objective was to evaluate the prevalence of BCP in a sample of patients admitted to a oncology medical department, in order to see whether pain is the main reason for admission in these patients, as well as to determine whether they were correctly treated and diagnosed before admission. Methods: An observational, prospective study. Patients were enrolled consecutively, regardless of reason for admission. The variables analyzed in relation to breakthrough pain were the following: presence of breakthrough pain according to the Davies scale; similarities of breakthrough pain events to each other and to baseline pain; number of irruptive pain events throughout the day and throughout the week; visual analogue scale of breakthrough pain; time between the onset of breakthrough pain and maximum intensity as measured in the following ranges: < 5 minutes, 5-30 minutes, > 30 minutes; duration of the breakthrough pain event (< 5 minutes, 5-30 minutes, > 30 minutes); triggers of breakthrough pain (incidental, spontaneous); perceived quality of life impairment and effectiveness of the drugs used. Results: A total of 115 patients consecutively admitted were analyzed regardless of reason for admission. In the analyzed sample, 33.9 % of patients had breakthrouth pain, and 95 % of the patients with breakthrough pain received treatment with strong opioids, though only in 56.4 % of cases associated with ultra-rapid-release opioids.Conclusions: The management of BCP is still a challenge. About half of patients with breakthrough cancer pain had not received adecuated treatment in our study, and were therefore poorly diagnosed. (AU)
