SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022)

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a “bridge” to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab–axitinib, nivolumab–cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab–lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (AU)

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022).

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a "bridge" to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. While no clear sequence can be advocated, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in the setting of metastatic RC.

Incidentes y eventos adversos en la Unidad de Cuidados Paliativos de un hospital de agudos geriátricos / Incidents and adverse events in the palliative care unit of an acute geriatric hospital

OBJETIVOS: Mejorar la seguridad del paciente es necesario en las unidades de cuidados paliativos donde no hay datos de incidentes y eventos adversos. Se analizaron los tipos de incidentes/eventos adversos, su frecuencia y gravedad en la Unidad de Cuidados Paliativos de un hospital de agudos geriátrico con el objetivo de introducir medidas que pudieran reducir su incidencia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo de 6 años utilizando un sistema de notificación voluntaria, un sistema de notificación obligatoria para las caídas de los pacientes y la herramienta Global Trigger Tool. Se llevó a cabo en un hospital geriátrico universitario español de 200 camas (27 camas en la Unidad de Cuidados Paliativos). Se incluyeron todos los pacientes ingresados en la Unidad (1.854). La severidad del daño se calculó por el Index of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 743 incidentes/eventos adversos, de los cuales 518 (69,7%) eran incidentes (categorías A-D de la clasificación del National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention) y 201 eventos adversos (categorías E-I). Los cuidados generales (51,5%) y los errores de medicación (45,2%) fueron los más frecuentes. De estos últimos, los más comunes eran las omisiones de dosis/medicamentos (43,5%). Tanto los antihipertensivos-IECA, antibióticos, antiepilépticos y neurolépticos presentaban tasas de error por encima de la media (5,2), cuando se calcularon los cocientes de incidentes/dispensación. CONCLUSIONES: Este estudio revela un nivel de eventos adversos nada desdeñable dada la conocida falta de sensibilidad de los métodos de detección de eventos adversos, lo que implica la necesidad de desarrollar marcadores de alarma específicos de cuidados paliativos

OBJECTIVES: Improving patient safety is necessary in palliative care units where data on incidents and adverse events are lacking. An analysis was performed on the types of incidents/adverse events, their frequency and severity in the Palliative Care Unit of an Acute Geriatric Hospital with the aim of introducing measures that might lower their incidence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 6 year retrospective study was conducted using a voluntary reporting system, a compulsory reporting system for patient falls, and the Global Trigger Tool in a Spanish urban geriatric teaching hospital of 200 beds (27 beds in the Palliative Care Unit). All patients (1,854) admitted to the Unit were included. The Index of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention was used to evaluate severity. RESULTS: A total of 743 incidents/adverse events were identified, of which 518 (69.7%) were incidents (categories A-D of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention classification), and 201 were adverse events (categories E-I). General care (51.5%) and medication errors (45.2%) were the most frequent. Of the latter, missing doses/drugs were most common (43.5%). Antihypertensives-ACEIs, antibiotics, antiepileptics, and neuroleptics showed mistake rates above the mean (5.2) when the incident-adverse events/dispensation ratios were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a negligible level of adverse events, given the known low sensitivity of the detection methods of incidents/adverse events, which implies the need to develop specific alarms in Palliative Care

Impact on clinical practice of the implementation of guidelines for the toxicity management of targeted therapies in kidney cancer. The protect-2 study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of such recommendations after their implementation of guidelines has not usually been evaluated. Herein, we assessed the impact and compliance with the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG) Guidelines for toxicity management of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Data on 407 mRCC patients who initiated first-line targeted therapy during the year before and the year after publication and implementation of the SOGUG guideline program were available from 34 Spanish Hospitals. Adherence to SOGUG Guidelines was assessed in every cycle. RESULTS: Adverse event (AE) management was consistent with the Guidelines as a whole for 28.7% out of 966 post-implementation cycles compared with 23.1% out of 892 pre-implementation cycles (p = 0.006). Analysis of adherence by AE in non-compliant cycles showed significant changes in appropriate management of hypertension (33% pre-implementation vs. 44.5% post-implementation cycles; p < 0.0001), diarrhea (74.0% vs. 80.5%; p = 0.011) and dyslipemia (25.0% vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Slight but significant improvements in AE management were detected following the implementation of SOGUG recommendations. However, room for improvement in the management of AEs due to targeted agents still remains and could be the focus for further programs in this direction.