No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Opinion statementCancer-associated pain has traditionally been treated with opioid analgesics, often in escalating doses. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common problem associated with chronic use of opioid analgesics. Typical treatment strategies to alleviate constipation are based on dietary changes, exercise, and laxatives. However, laxatives have a nonspecific action and do not target underlying mechanisms of OIC. This article will review prevalent, clinical presentation and recommendations for the treatment of OIC. An independent literature search was carried out by the authors. We reviewed the literature for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of laxatives, naloxone, and naloxegol in treating OIC. Newer strategies addressing the causal pathophysiology of OIC are needed for a more effective assessment and management of OIC. Finally, traditional recommended therapies are appraised and compared with the latest pharmacological developments. Future research should address whether naloxegol is more efficacious by its comparison directly with first-line treatments, including laxatives.

Purpose Cancer patients require implantation of venous access devices to meet their personalized therapeutic needs, which are often complex due to the nature of the medication and the disease status. Therefore, it is essential to have standardized protocols that guarantee the best results in health and patient safety. Methods To learn about the availability of protocols and aspects related to safety in clinical practice and to detect possible opportunities for improvement, a survey has been conducted in various Spanish hospitals, in addition to a review of the evidence regarding the various devices available and complications associated with the administration of chemotherapy. Results As a result of both analyses, the Foundation for Excellence and Quality in Oncology (ECO), the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), and the Spanish Society of Oncology Nursing (SEEO) have developed a catheter selection algorithm based on patient characteristics and treatment to facilitate the clinical decision-making process, as well as some recommendations aimed at ensuring patient safety and rational use of available resources. Conclusions In conclusion, both the venous access catheter selection algorithm and the proposed recommendations aim to respond to the needs revealed in clinical practice and to become an integrable tool in electronic prescription systems to offer homogeneous criteria for action in cancer patients that require venous access, optimizing the use of available health resources with the highest safety and quality of life for the patient.

No abstract

No abstract

Recurrent or metastatic GISTs are currently treated with kinase inhibitors since they achieves disease control in 70-85% of patients but this response depend on KIT and PDGFRA gene mutation status. We review the morfological and molecular findings associated to kinase inhibitors administration in GISTs based on the literature on Medline and authors' own experience. The initial response to kinase inhibitors (imatinib mesylate, Gleevec, Novartis) usually is partial and depend on the mutational KIT or PDGFRA state. Amongst patients wih KIT mutations, the best results are achived in those harboring exon 11 (85%) and exon 9 (45%) mutations. GISTs harboring PDGFRA gene mutations generally respond favorably except those involving the Asp842Val mutation. In the absence of KIT/PDGFRA gene mutations, partial response or disease stabilization is reported in 23% and 50% of patients, respectively, and disease progression in 19%. Histological examination of tumors displaying an initial response to imatinib reveals a highly-variable reduction in the number of tumor cells, a decline in the proliferative index, myxohyaline or sclerohyaline stroma, and a varying degree of bleeding and edema, necrosis and cystification. 72% of patients with initial good response to imatinib, display metastases or new nodule growth within an existing clinically-quiescent tumor after 12-36 months of treatment. This secondary resistance is characterized by a number of well-defined morphological and molecular changes. Histologically, the new growths display increased mitotic activity, pleomorphism, an epithelioid or mixed phenotype and persistent KIT expression although more rarely, dedifferentiation and loss of KIT expression (Fig. 4), as well as trans-differentiation into a rhabdomyosarcoma or epithelial phenotype has been reported. Molecularly, 46-67% of patients present additional KIT mutations, generally in the kinase domain (exons 13, 14 and 17) but also in the ATP-binding domain (exons 15,16) of the same allele. Secondary PDGFRA mutations are very rare. Secondary mutations have not been observed in GISTs not harboring KIT/PDGFRA mutations, or in tumors displaying an unusual morphology or loss of CD117 expression. A number of studies highlight the presence of different resistance mutations within different new tumor nodules, as well as the simultaneous development of distinct resistant tumor subclones within a single lesion (acquired polyclonal resistance). Secondary mutation in genes other than KIT/PDGFRA has only been reported in BRAF (Val600Glu).