Identifying and preventing burnout in young oncologists, an overwhelming challenge in the COVID-19 era: a study of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

BACKGROUND: Young oncologists are at particular risk of professional burnout, and this could have a significant impact on their health and care of their patients. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced rapid changes in professionals' jobs and training, with the consequent physical and psychological effects. We aimed to characterize burnout levels and determinants in young oncologists, and the effects of the pandemic on their training and health. METHODS: Two online surveys were conducted among oncology residents and young oncology specialists in Spain. The first addressed professional burnout and its determinants before the COVID-19 pandemic, while the second analyzed the impact of the pandemic on health care organization, training, and physical and psychological health in the same population. RESULTS: In total, 243 respondents completed the first survey, and 263 the second; 25.1% reported significant levels of professional burnout. Burnout was more common among medical oncology residents (28.2%), mainly in their second year of training. It was significantly associated with a poor work-life balance, inadequate vacation time, and the burnout score. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) were reassigned to COVID-19 care and 84.3% of residents missed part of their training rotations. Overall, 17.2% of this population reported that they had contracted COVID-19, 37.3% had scores indicating anxiety, and 30.4% moderate to severe depression. Almost a quarter of young oncologists (23.3%) had doubts about their medical vocation. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout affects a considerable number of young oncologists. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on causes of burnout, making it even more necessary to periodically monitor it to define appropriate detection and prevention strategies.

Optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: data from the AGAMENON registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer is unknown. Diverse clinical trials have proposed different strategies including limited treatment, maintenance of some drugs, or treatment until progression. METHOD: The sample comprises patients from the AGAMENON multicenter registry without progression after second evaluation of response. The objective was to explore the optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy. A frailty multi-state model was conducted. RESULTS: 415 patients were divided into three strata: discontinuation of platinum and maintenance with fluoropyrimidine until progression (30%, n = 123), complete treatment withdrawal prior to progression (52%, n = 216), and full treatment until progression (18%, n = 76). The hazard of tumor progression decreased by 19% per month with the full treatment regimen. However, we found no evidence that fluoropyrimidine maintenance (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, confidence interval [CI] 95%, 0.69-1.65) worsened progression-free survival (PFS) with respect to treatment until progression. Predictive factors for PFS were ECOG performance status, ≥ 3 metastatic sites, prior tumor response, and bone metastases. Toxicity grade 3/4 was more common in those who continued the full treatment until progression vs fluoropyrimidine maintenance (16% vs 6%). CONCLUSION: The longer duration of the full initial regimen exerted a protective effect on the patients of this registry. Platinum discontinuation followed by fluoropyrimidine maintenance yields comparable efficacy to treatment up to PD, with a lower rate of serious adverse events.

Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in clinical practice: a feasible alternative for patients with good performance status.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to assess efficacy and safety and prognostic factors associated with TAS-102 in clinical practice. METHOD: Retrospective, multicenter, and observational study including patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer who started TAS-102 between March 2016 and August 2018. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, toxicity and analyze prognostic factors present at the beginning of TAS-102. RESULT: 84 patients were evaluable. The median OS was 8.30 (95% CI 6.23-9.87) months and PFS was 2.62 (95% CI 2.36-3.05) months. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 0 and reduced dose combined with more cycles were associated with better prognosis. Patients with an ECOG > 0 had worse prognosis (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.09-10.27, p = 0.035). 95.2% experienced some type of adverse effect and 45.2% had grade ≥ 3 toxicities. CONCLUSION: Results suggest reconsidering TAS-102 in patients with ECOG > 0, something that should be investigated in prospective randomized clinical trials.

Key points to optimizing management and research on cancer-associated thrombosis

Despite the fact that thromboembolism is relatively common in oncology patients and that the interrelationship between thrombotic risk and specific mechanisms of tumorigenesis has long been known, many cardinal elements of prevention and treatment remain unresolved. Among the existing knowledge gaps, the need to validate the Ay scale and compare it to the Khorana index, develop, and standardize the use of predictive biomarkers for thrombotic risk, conduct clinical trials in thromboprophylaxis adapted to thrombotic risk, evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct anticoagulants, select patients who can benefit from anticoagulants for antitumor treatment, validate the EPIPHANY study decision tree to choose patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism, and accumulate more practical experience in special situations (rethrombosis, prolonged therapy beyond 6 months, etc.) are especially remarkable. These gray areas surrounding cancer-related thromboembolism explain why it continues to be a relatively common cause of serious events, at times interfering significantly with the development of new tumor-fighting strategies (AU)

No disponible

Anthracycline-based triplets do not improve the efficacy of platinum-fluoropyrimidine doublets in first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer: real-world data from the AGAMEMON National Cancer Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although anthracycline-based triplets are one of the most widely used schedules to treat advanced gastric cancer (AGC), the benefit of including epirubicin in these therapeutic combinations remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate both the efficacy and tolerance of triplets with epirubicin vs. doublets with platinum-fluoropyrimidine in a national AGC registry. METHODS: Patients with AGC treated with polychemotherapy without trastuzumab at 28 hospitals in Spain between 2008 and 2016 were included. The effect of anthracycline-based triplets against doublets was evaluated by propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression. RESULT: A total of 1002 patients were included (doublets, n = 653; anthracycline-based triplets, n = 349). The multivariable Cox PH regression failed to detect significantly increased OS in favor of triplets with anthracyclines: HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.78-1.05), p = 0.20035. After PSM, the sample contained 325 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. This method was also unable to reveal an increase in OS: 10.5 (95% CI, 9.7-12.3) vs. 9.9 (95% CI, 9.2-11.4) months, HR 0.91 (CI 95%, 0.76-1.083), and (log-rank test, p = 0.226). Response rates (42.1 vs. 33.1%, p = 0.12) and PFS (HR 0.95, CI 95%, 0.80-1.13, log-rank test, p = 0.873) were not significantly higher with epirubicin-based regimens. The triplets were associated with greater grade 3-4 hematological toxicity, and increased hospitalization due to toxicity by 68%. The addition of epirubicin is viable, but 23.7% discontinued treatment because of adverse effects or patient decision. CONCLUSION: Anthracyclines added to platinum-fluoropyrimidine doublets did not improve the response rate or survival outcomes in patients with AGC but entailed greater toxicity.

Key points to optimizing management and research on cancer-associated thrombosis.

Despite the fact that thromboembolism is relatively common in oncology patients and that the interrelationship between thrombotic risk and specific mechanisms of tumorigenesis has long been known, many cardinal elements of prevention and treatment remain unresolved. Among the existing knowledge gaps, the need to validate the Ay scale and compare it to the Khorana index, develop, and standardize the use of predictive biomarkers for thrombotic risk, conduct clinical trials in thromboprophylaxis adapted to thrombotic risk, evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct anticoagulants, select patients who can benefit from anticoagulants for antitumor treatment, validate the EPIPHANY study decision tree to choose patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism, and accumulate more practical experience in special situations (rethrombosis, prolonged therapy beyond 6 months, etc.) are especially remarkable. These gray areas surrounding cancer-related thromboembolism explain why it continues to be a relatively common cause of serious events, at times interfering significantly with the development of new tumor-fighting strategies.

The time has come for new models in febrile neutropenia: a practical demonstration of the inadequacy of the MASCC score

Since its publication more than 15 years ago, the MASCC score has been internationally validated any number of times and recommended by most clinical practice guidelines for the management of febrile neutropenia (FN) around the world. We have used an empirical data-supported simulated scenario to demonstrate that, despite everything, the MASCC score is impractical as a basis for decision-making. A detailed analysis of reasons supporting the clinical irrelevance of this model is performed. First, seven of its eight variables are "innocent bystanders" that contribute little to selecting low-risk candidates for ambulatory management. Secondly, the training series was hardly representative of outpatients with solid tumors and low-risk FN. Finally, the simultaneous inclusion of key variables both in the model and in the outcome explains its successful validation in various series of patients. Alternative methods of prognostic classification, such as the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia, have been specifically validated for patients with solid tumors and should replace the MASCC model in situations of clinical uncertainty (AU)

No disponible

The time has come for new models in febrile neutropenia: a practical demonstration of the inadequacy of the MASCC score.

Since its publication more than 15 years ago, the MASCC score has been internationally validated any number of times and recommended by most clinical practice guidelines for the management of febrile neutropenia (FN) around the world. We have used an empirical data-supported simulated scenario to demonstrate that, despite everything, the MASCC score is impractical as a basis for decision-making. A detailed analysis of reasons supporting the clinical irrelevance of this model is performed. First, seven of its eight variables are "innocent bystanders" that contribute little to selecting low-risk candidates for ambulatory management. Secondly, the training series was hardly representative of outpatients with solid tumors and low-risk FN. Finally, the simultaneous inclusion of key variables both in the model and in the outcome explains its successful validation in various series of patients. Alternative methods of prognostic classification, such as the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia, have been specifically validated for patients with solid tumors and should replace the MASCC model in situations of clinical uncertainty.