The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to assess the feasibility of outpatient treatment in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE), and to compare the performance of the different prognostic scales available in this setting. Patients were selected for outpatient management according to a set of exclusion criteria. Outcomes at 30 and 90 days of follow-up included thromboembolic recurrences, major bleeding, and all-cause death. The performance of 4 prognostic scales (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index, Geneva Prognostic Score, POMPE-C, and Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad Tromboembólica [RIETE registry]) was evaluated. Of 138 patients, 62 (45%) were managed as outpatients. Incidental PE constituted 47% of the sample. Most patients treated at home had an incidentally detected PE (89%). The rate of recurrence and major bleeding events was similar in both groups. Mortality rates were higher for patients admitted to the hospital compared with outpatients at 30 days (18% vs 3%; P=.06) and 90 days (34% vs 10%; P=.001) of follow-up. None of the patients selected for home treatment required further admission because of PE complications. None of the prognostic models developed for symptomatic PE was significantly associated with 30-day mortality. Improved survival outcomes were observed in incidentally detected PEs compared with acute symptomatic events (overall mortality rates, 3.2% vs 18.4%; P=.006). A large proportion of patients with cancer and PE may be safely treated as outpatients, especially those with incidental PE. Cancer-specific prognostic scales including incidental PE should be developed for the optimal management of PE in this setting.
Carme Font, Alberto Carmona-Bayonas, Aranzazu Fernández-Martinez, Carmen Beato, Andrés Vargas, Pere Gascon and Remedios Otero
Alberto Carmona-Bayonas, Paula Jiménez-Fonseca, Maria Luisa Sánchez Lorenzo, Avinash Ramchandani, Elena Asensio Martínez, Ana Custodio, Marcelo Garrido, Isabel Echavarría, Juana María Cano, Jose Enrique Lorenzo Barreto, Teresa García García, Felipe Álvarez Manceñido, Alejandra Lacalle, Marta Ferrer Cardona, Monserrat Mangas, Laura Visa, Elvira Buxó, Aitor Azkarate, Asunción Díaz-Serrano, Ana Fernández Montes and Fernando Rivera
Background: There is currently no consensus regarding first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who are ineligible to receive trastuzumab. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of triplets versus doublets by analyzing a national gastric cancer registry. Patients and Method: Patients with AGC treated with polychemotherapy without associating trastuzumab were included from 2008 through 2016. The effect of triplets versus doublets was compared using 3 methods: Cox proportional hazards regression, propensity score matching (PSM), and coarsened exact matching (CEM). Results: A total of 970 patients were recruited (doublets: n=569; triplets: n=401). In the multivariate Cox model, the use of triplets was associated with better overall survival (OS), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72–0.98; P=.035). After PSM, the sample contained 340 pairs. A significant increase in OS, 11.14 months (95% CI, 9.60–12.68) versus 9.60 months (95% CI, 8.44–10.75), was seen in favor of triplets (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65–0.92; stratified log-rank test, P=.004). The effect appeared to be comparable for anthracycline-based (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64–0.94) or docetaxel-based triplets (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60–1.009). The trend was similar after applying the CEM algorithm, with an HR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63–0.97; P=.03). Triplet therapy was viable and relative dose intensities exceeded 85%, except for cisplatin in DCX (docetaxel, cisplatin, capecitabine). Triplets had more severe toxicity overall, especially hematologic, hepatic, and mucosal adverse events. Conclusions: With the limitations of a retrospective study that examines a heterogeneous set of chemotherapy regimens, we found that triplets are feasible in daily practice and are associated with a discreet benefit in efficacy at the expense of a moderate increase in toxicity.