Impact of stereotactic body radiation therapy on geriatric assessment and management for older patients with head and neck cancer using G8

PurposeManagement of head and neck cancers (HNC) in older adults is a common but challenging clinical scenario. We assess the impact of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) on survival utilizing the Geriatric-8 (G8) questionnaire.Materials and methods171 HNC patients, deemed medically unfit for definitive treatment, were treated with SBRT ± systemic therapy. G8 questionnaires were collected at baseline, at 4–6 weeks, and at 2–3 months post-treatment. Patients were stratified according to their baseline G8 score: <11 as ‘vulnerable’, 11–14 as ‘intermediate’, and >14 as ‘fit’. Overall survival (OS) was assessed through univariate Kaplan Meier analysis. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if baseline characteristics affected G8 score changes.ResultsMedian follow-up was seventeen months. 60% of patients presented with recurrent HNC, 30% with untreated HNC primaries, and 10% with metastatic non-HNC primaries. Median age was 75 years. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 2. 51% of patients were ‘vulnerable’, 37% were ‘intermediate’, and 12% were ‘fit' at baseline, with median survival of 13.2, 24.3, and 41.0 months, respectively (p = .004). Patients who saw a decrease in their follow-up G8 score (n = 69) had significantly lower survival than patients who had stable or increased follow-up G8 scores (n = 102), with median survival of 8.6 vs 36.0 months (p < .001).ConclusionThe G8 questionnaire may be a useful tool in upfront treatment decision-making to predict prognosis and prevent older patients from receiving inappropriate anti-cancer treatment. Decline in follow-up G8 scores may also predict worse survival and aid in goals of care following treatment.     

Prevalence of overlap of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody associated vasculitis with systemic autoimmune diseases: an unrecognized example of poliautoimmunity

Clinical Rheumatology - We aimed to estimate the frequency of overlap of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) with systemic autoimmune diseases. Retrospective...     

The relationship between childhood maltreatment and psychopathology in adults undergoing bariatric surgery

Background

A history of childhood maltreatment and psychopathology are common in adults with obesity.

Riesgo de recurrencia tras retirada de la anticoagulación en pacientes con enfermedad tromboembólica venosa no provocada: validación externa del nomograma de Viena y del modelo predictivo DASH

IntroductionScales for predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence are useful for deciding the duration of the anticoagulant treatment. Although there are several scales, the most appropriate for our setting has not been identified. For this reason, we aimed to validate the DASH prediction score and the Vienna nomogram at 12 months.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of unselected consecutive VTE patients seen between 2006 and 2014. We compared the ability of the DASH score and the Vienna nomogram to predict recurrences of VTE. The validation was performed by stratifying patients as low-risk or high-risk, according to each scale (discrimination) and comparing the observed recurrence with the expected rate (calibration).ResultsOf 353 patients evaluated, 195 were analyzed, with an average age of 53.5 ± 19 years. There were 21 recurrences in 1 year (10.8%, 95% CI: 6.8%-16%). According to the DASH score, 42% were classified as low risk, and the rate of VTE recurrence in this group was 4.9% (95% CI: 1.3%-12%) vs. the high-risk group that was 15% (95% CI: 9%-23%) (p <.05). According to the Vienna nomogram, 30% were classified as low risk, and the rate of VTE recurrence in the low risk group vs. the high risk group was 4.2% (95% CI:0.5%-14%) vs. 16.2% (95% CI: 9.9%-24.4%) (p <.05).ConclusionsOur study validates the DASH score and the Vienna nomogram in our population. The DASH prediction score may be the most advisable, both because of its simplicity and its ability to identify more low-risk patients than the Vienna nomogram (42% vs. 30%).