How appropriate is treating patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer with anticancer drugs? A multicenter retrospective cohort Spanish study.

AIM: To assess the appropriateness of systemic oncological treatments (SOT) provided to patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer (EC) across a group of participating hospitals. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study in five Spanish hospitals including newly confirmed advanced EC cases between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, with a 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 157 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria (median age: 65 years, 85.9% males). Most patients, 125 (79.6%) were treated at least with one active treatment, and 33% received two or more lines of SOT. The 1-, 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 30.3% [95%CI: 23.8, 38.7], 14.0% [95%CI: 9.3, 21.0], and 7.1% [95% CI: 3.8, 13.1] respectively, and the median survival time 8 months (95% CI: 6, 19) for stages IIIb IIIc and 7 months (95% CI: 5, 9) for stage IV. Clinical stage, receiving more than one line of SOT, and treatment with radiotherapy accelerated the time to death (0.4, 0.9-, and 0.8-times shorter survival respectively, p < 0.05). Better performance status (ECOG < 2) extended survival time by 2.2 times (p = 0.04). Age < 65 years (OR 9.4, 95% CI 3.2, 31.4, p < 0.001), and being treated in one particular hospital (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 0.8, p < 0.01) were associated with the administration of two or more lines of SOT. Altogether, 18.9% and 9.0% of patients received chemotherapy in the last four and two weeks of life, respectively. Moreover, 2.5% of patients were prescribed a new line of chemotherapy during the last month of life. The proportion of all patients who did not have access to palliative care reached 29.3%, and among those who had access to it, 34.2% initiated it in the last month of life. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of advanced EC patients receive many treatments not based on sound evidence and they do not benefit enough from palliative care services. The most accepted appropriateness indicators point out that some of the analyzed patients could have been overtreated. This study provides important insights into the quality of care provided to advanced EC, and furthermore, for giving valuable insight and opportunities for improvement.

Impact of using different SCORE tables for estimating cardiovascular risk.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In Spain, various SCORE tables are available to estimate cardiovascular risk: tables for low-risk countries, tables calibrated for the Spanish population, and tables that include high-density lipoprotein values. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of using one or another SCORE table in clinical practice. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study carried out in two primary health care centers, individuals aged 40 to 65 years in whom blood pressure and total cholesterol levels were recorded between March 2010 and March 2012 were selected. Patients with diabetes or a history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Cardiovascular risk was calculated using SCORE for low-risk countries, SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the calibrated SCORE. RESULTS: Cardiovascular risk was estimated in 3716 patients. The percentage of patients at high or very high risk was 1.24% with SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 4.73% with the low-risk SCORE, and 15.44% with the calibrated SCORE (P<.01). Treatment with lipid-lowering drugs would be recommended in 10.23% of patients using the calibrated SCORE, 3.12% of patients using the low-risk SCORE, and 0.67% of patients using SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: The calibrated SCORE table classifies a larger number of patients at high or very high risk than the SCORE for low-risk countries or the SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Therefore, its use would imply treating more patients with lipid-lowering medication. Validation studies are needed to assess the most appropriate SCORE table for use in our setting.

Impacto de la utilización de las diferentes tablas SCORE en el cálculo del riesgo cardiovascular / Impact of using different SCORE tables for estimating cardiovascular risk

Introducción y objetivos. En España disponemos de tablas SCORE para el cálculo del riesgo cardiovascular en países de bajo riesgo, tablas calibradas para la población española, y unas tablas que permiten incluir el colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad. Este estudio pretende evaluar el impacto de la utilización de una u otra tabla de riesgo en la práctica clínica. Métodos. Estudio transversal realizado en dos centros de salud. Se seleccionó a sujetos de entre 40 y 65 años de edad que contaran con un registro de presión arterial y colesterol total entre marzo de 2010 y marzo de 2012. Se excluyó a los sujetos con antecedente de diabetes mellitus o enfermedad cardiovascular. Se calculó el riesgo utilizando las tablas SCORE para países de bajo riesgo, tablas SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad y tablas SCORE calibrado. Resultados. Se calculó el riesgo cardiovascular a 3.716 pacientes. Los pacientes de alto o muy alto riesgo fueron el 1,24% con SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad, el 4,73% con SCORE para países de bajo riesgo y el 15,44% con SCORE calibrado (p < 0,01). Utilizando el SCORE calibrado, deberíamos tratar con hipolipemiantes al 10,23% de los pacientes; con el SCORE para países de bajo riesgo, al 3,12%, y con el SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad, al 0,67%. Conclusiones. La tabla SCORE calibrado identifica a más pacientes de alto riesgo que las del SCORE de bajo riesgo y el SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad, por lo que su utilización implicaría tratar a más pacientes con estatinas. Son necesarios estudios de validación del SCORE para valorar la tabla más adecuada en nuestro medio (AU)

Introduction and objectives. In Spain, various SCORE tables are available to estimate cardiovascular risk: tables for low-risk countries, tables calibrated for the Spanish population, and tables that include high-density lipoprotein values. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of using one or another SCORE table in clinical practice. Methods. In a cross-sectional study carried out in two primary health care centers, individuals aged 40 to 65 years in whom blood pressure and total cholesterol levels were recorded between March 2010 and March 2012 were selected. Patients with diabetes or a history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Cardiovascular risk was calculated using SCORE for low-risk countries, SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the calibrated SCORE. Results. Cardiovascular risk was estimated in 3716 patients. The percentage of patients at high or very high risk was 1.24% with SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 4.73% with the low-risk SCORE, and 15.44% with the calibrated SCORE (P<.01). Treatment with lipid-lowering drugs would be recommended in 10.23% of patients using the calibrated SCORE, 3.12% of patients using the low-risk SCORE, and 0.67% of patients using SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Conclusions. The calibrated SCORE table classifies a larger number of patients at high or very high risk than the SCORE for low-risk countries or the SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Therefore, its use would imply treating more patients with lipid-lowering medication. Validation studies are needed to assess the most appropriate SCORE table for use in our setting (AU)