Pilot study on workload estimate in breast cancer, lung cancer and colorectal cancer in a Medical Oncology Service at Valme hospital.

New advances in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and the increased incidence and prevalence of this disease have led to an increase in the number and duration of visits in Medical Oncology in the last few years. Based on the functions of a medical oncologist and the time recommended for each work activity established by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), we carried out a pilot study on the three most frequent neoplasias in our country [breast cancer (BC), lung cancer (LC) and colorectal cancer (CRC)], in order to determine the real time each patient requires from a physician and thus establish a recommendation on the number of medical oncologists necessary. Using the actual itinerary of the first 20 patients of 2009 in each of the three neoplasias seen at the Medical Oncology Service of the Virgen de Valme University Hospital, we measured the number of visits, the antineoplastic treatments received, the number of hospital admissions and average length of stay. During the years following the study, these data were estimated based on the natural history of each neoplasia. During the first year, the average time spent by the medical oncologist was 235, 390 and 265 min on each outpatient with BC, LC and CRC, respectively. In hospitalisation, the average oncologist/patient minutes were 40, 360 and 118 for BC, LC and CRC, respectively. Finally, the time spent on each visit or day of hospitalisation was that recommended by the SEOM, achieving an ultimate ratio of 1 oncologist for every 83 first visits.

Functions and workload of medical oncologists in Spain.

The functions and workload of medical oncologists are becoming increasingly relevant as cancer is a priority health issue in our country. Taking into account the specific characteristics and complexity of caring for cancer patients, the time of physicians attached to Medical Oncology could be distributed as follows: 70% for consultation (including participation in tumour committees and multidisciplinary units), 15% for research and 15% for training, teaching and clinical sessions. The time distribution for Heads of Services or Heads of Units is different, since it must also include their clinical management tasks, team coordination, and relations with other services and institutions. The average time, calculated in minutes, spent on each activity per patient is as follows: first visit and "second visit or results visit" 60-90 min; successive visits at the day hospital 15 min; successive visits of patients for follow-up or checkups 20 min; visits with family members 15-20 min; telephone or e-mail consultations 5-10 min; hospitalisation 20 min; and interconsultation 30-60 min. Also, participation in multidisciplinary committees takes up 60-120 min of an oncologist's time each week. When new technologies such as electronic medical records, e-mail and other software are used, these times increase with a correction factor that is still to be defined and which could vary according to the centre. Finally, the ratio recommended by SEOM is one medical oncologist for every 83 new patients a year.

Classical markers like ER and ki-67, but also survivin and pERK, could be involved in the pathological response to gemcitabine, adriamycin and paclitaxel (GAT) in locally advanced breast cancer patients: results from the GEICAM/2002-01 phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: The identification and validation of biomarkers of chemotherapy sensitivity is critical in order to individualise therapy in breast cancer. We evaluated pathological complete response (pCR) to GAT, and its correlation with tumour biomarkers before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage III (and stage II with T≥5 cm) breast cancer patients were included. Treatment consisted of adriamycin (40 mg/m(2)) day 1, and paclitaxel (150 mg/ m(2)) followed by gemcitabine (2000 mg/m(2)) day 2, every 14 days for six cycles. Tissue from pre-treatment biopsy and surgery was evaluated for biologic markers by immunohistochemistry. Two XPD single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were also analysed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients entered the trial. Median age was 49.5 years (range 31-72); 25 patients (54%) were pre-menopausal; 12 (26%) were ER-PgR-negative; pCR was observed in 17% (95% CI: 6.4-28.4) of patients. Significant differences in marker expression (mean±SD) in correlation to pathological response were only found in Ki- 67. After treatment, tumours showed lower Ki-67-, surviving- and pERK-positive cells. No correlation between XPD polymorphisms and pCR was found. The overall response rate was 89% (95% CI: 80.1-98.1). Fifteen patients (33%) underwent breast-conserving surgery. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 toxicities were neutropenia (with one febrile neutropenia) and asthenia. CONCLUSION: These results show an effective regimen with acceptable tolerability. Our data suggest that not only classical markers (ER, Ki-67), but also survivin and pERK could be involved in the response to GAT, which may contribute to therapy individualisation in future study designs.

Biweekly vinorelbine and tegafur/uracil in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: GEICAM 2000-02 phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the efficacy and safety profile of biweekly vinorelbine and tegafur/uracil (UFT) as treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer, measurable disease, no more than one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2, and adequate bone marrow, renal and liver function were eligible. Patients received vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) on day 1) and UFT (250 mg/m(2) daily) every two weeks for 12 cycles unless progression or unacceptable toxicity was observed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included and received 311 cycles of chemotherapy. Efficacy and toxicity analyses were carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall response rate was 35% (95% CI: 20-53). With a median follow-up of 18.6 months (95% CI: 1.0-74.3), the median time to progression was 7.0 months (96% CI: 5.2-8.9) and the median overall survival was 19.4 months (95% CI: 11.1-27.8). The most common severe toxicities were neutropenia (38% of patients) and asthenia (11% of patients). CONCLUSION: The combination of biweekly vinorelbine and UFT in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes is a well tolerated and effective regimen. AEMPS Trial Registration No.: 00-0534.

A multicentre phase II study to evaluate sequential docetaxel followed by capecitabine treatment in anthracycline-pretreated HER-2-negative patients with metastatic breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients after anthracycline exposure is controversial. Docetaxel/capecitabine is a promising regimen, but the administration schedule is not well established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment included 3 cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2 day 1 every 21 days followed by 3 cycles of capecitabine 1250 mg/m2/12 h days 1-14. Patients not progressing were maintained with capecitabine 900 mg/m2/12 h on days 1-14 every 21 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-three anthracycline-pretreated patients were enrolled: median age 54 years, ECOG grade 0-1 86.7%. Most of the women received adjuvant chemotherapy (81%) and 5 patients (9%) had had prior metastatic chemotherapy treatment. Median time from anthracycline exposure was 29 months. ORR (intent-to-treatment analysis) after the sequential therapy was 51% (CI 95% 37-65) with 15% (CI 95% 7-28) of patients reaching complete responses. Median time to progression was 8.2 (CI 95% 7.1-10.7) months, with 61.9% (CI 95% 45.6-76.4) of the patients free of disease after 6 months. Median overall survival was not reached after a median follow-up of 10.4 months, and 75% of the patients were alive after 14.3 months. Survival rate after 12 months was 81.1% (CI 95% 68.0-90.6). The most frequent NCI grade 3-4 toxicities were hair loss (28.3%), asthenia (15.1%), stomatitis (11.32%) and nausea (11.32%). Severe hand-foot syndrome rate was 7.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential docetaxel-capecitabine is feasible, effective and well tolerated in first-line MBC treatment. Evaluation of this schedule in randomised studies is warranted.

Prospective randomized phase III trial of etoposide/cisplatin versus high-dose epirubicin/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer.

High-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin was compared with the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Four hundred two previously untreated patients with SCLC were randomized to receive etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles. Patients were stratified according to treatment center and extent of disease (limited disease, n = 207; extensive disease, n = 195). Patients with limited disease were treated with thoracic radiation therapy after completion of chemotherapy, and those who exhibited a complete response were advised to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was survival, and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), response, toxicity, and costs. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced in the 2 arms, even though more patients in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm had > 5% weight loss and poor Karnofsky performance index compared with the etoposide/cisplatin arm. One hundred thirty-four patients (66.3%) in the etoposide/cisplatin arm and 126 (63.0%) in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm received all 6 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Response rate, TTP, and survival did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and toxic deaths occurred more frequently in the etoposide/cisplatin arm. Epirubicin/cisplatin showed a similar activity with a slightly lower toxicity profile than the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin. The epirubicin/cisplatin regimen may be recommended in the treatment of SCLC.