Sensitivity of cervical cytology in endometrial cancer detection in a tertiary hospital in Spain

Introduction: Cervical cytology is a well-stablished cervical cancer screening method. However, due to the anatomical continuity of the genital tract, it can also detect signs of endometrial disease. Our aim was to estimate the sensitivity of cervical cytology in endometrial cancer detection and prognosis in a large population over a 30-year period in a large academic tertiary hospital in Spain. Methodology: We performed a search for women diagnosed with endometrial cancer from 1990 to 2020, who were surgically treated and had a previous cervical cytology result. Information Technologies Department databases from Bellvitge University Hospital and the Screenwide case-control study's database were used. Cervical cytology results were classified as abnormal when squamous lesions, glandular atypia or malignant cells were identified. Results: Overall, we evaluated 371 women with endometrial cancer and a documented cervical cytology performed within 3 years previous to surgical treatment. Overall, the sensitivity of cervical cytology for endometrial cancer detection was 25.6%. Several clinico-pathological characteristics, such as non-endometrioid histology and a higher stage, were correlated with higher sensitivity

Comparación de costes de tres tratamientos del cáncer de próstata localizado en España : prostatectomía radical, braquiterapia prostática y radioterapia conformacional externa 3D

Altres ajuts: AATM/086/24/2000Objetivo: comparar los costes de los tratamientos más establecidos para el cáncer de próstata localizado según grupos de riesgo, edad y comorbilidad, desde la perspectiva del proveedor asistencial. Métodos: comparación de costes en pacientes reclutados consecutivamente entre 2003 y 2005 en una unidad funcional de tratamiento del cáncer de próstata. La utilización de servicios hasta 6 meses después del inicio del tratamiento se obtuvo de las bases de datos hospitalarias, y los costes directos se estimaron mediante cálculo microcoste. La información sobre las características clínicas de los pacientes y los tratamientos recogió prospectivamente. Los costes se compararon mediante tests no paramétricos de comparación de medianas (Kruskall-Wallis) y un modelo semilogarítmico de regresión múltiple. Resultados: la diferencia de costes fue estadísticamente significativa: medianas de 3229.10D, 5369.00Dy 6265.60D para los pacientes tratados con radioterapia conformacional externa 3D, braquiterapia, y prostatectomía radical retro pública, respectivamente (p <0,001). En el análisis multivariado (R2 ajustada=0,8), los costes medios de la braquiterapia y de la radioterapia externa fueron significativamente menores que los de la prostatectomía (coeficiente -0,212 y -0,729, respectivamente). Conclusiones: la prostatectomía radical resultó ser la opción terapéutica de mayor coste. En general, los costes estimados en nuestro estudio son inferiores a los publicados en otros ámbitos. La opción terapéutica explica gran parte de los costes, y tanto la comorbilidad como el grupo de riesgo no mostraron efecto independiente del tratamiento sobre los costes totales.Objective: To compare the initial costs of the three most established treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer according to risk, age and comorbidity groups, from the healthcare provider's perspective. Methods: We carried out a cost comparison study in a sample of patients consecutively recruited between 2003 and 2005 from a functional unit for prostate cancer treatment in Catalonia (Spain). The use of services up to 6 months after the treatment start date was obtained from hospital databases and direct costs were estimated by micro-cost calculation. Information on the clinical characteristics of patients and treatments was collected prospectively. Costs were compared by using nonparametric tests comparing medians (Kruskall-Wallis) and a semi-logarithmic multiple regression model. Results: Among the 398 patients included, the cost difference among treatments was statistically significant: medians were €3,229.10, €5,369.00 and €6,265.60, respectively, for the groups of patients treated with external 3D conformal radiotherapy, brachytherapy and radical retropublic prostatectomy, (p<0.001). In the multivariate analysis (adjusted R=0.8), the average costs of brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were significantly lower than that of prostatectomy (coefficient -0.212 and -0.729, respectively). Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy proved to be the most expensive treatment option. Overall, the estimated costs in our study were lower than those published elsewhere. Most of the costs were explained by the therapeutic option and neither comorbidity nor risk groups showed an effect on total costs independent of treatment

Comparación de costes de tres tratamientos del cáncer de próstata localizado en España: prostatectomía radical, braquiterapia prostática y radioterapia conformacional externa 3D Cost comparison of three treatments for localized prostate cancer in Spain: radical prostatectomy, prostate brachytherapy and external 3D conformal radiotherapy

Objetivo: Comparar los costes de los tratamientos más establecidos para el cáncer de próstata localizado según grupos de riesgo, edad y comorbilidad, desde la perspectiva del proveedor asistencial. Métodos: Comparación de costes en pacientes reclutados consecutivamente entre 2003 y 2005 en una unidad funcional de tratamiento del cáncer de próstata. La utilización de servicios hasta 6 meses después del inicio del tratamiento se obtuvo de las bases de datos hospitalarias, y los costes directos se estimaron mediante cálculo microcoste. La información sobre las características clínicas de los pacientes y los tratamientos recogió prospectivamente. Los costes se compararon mediante tests no paramétricos de comparación de medianas (Kruskall-Wallis) y un modelo semilogarítmico de regresión múltiple. Resultados: La diferencia de costes fue estadísticamente significativa: medianas de 3229.10 &euro;, 5369.00 &euro; y 6265.60 &euro; para los pacientes tratados con radioterapia conformacional externa 3D, braquiterapia, y prostatectomía radical retropública, respectivamente (pObjective: To compare the initial costs of the three most established treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer according to risk, age and comorbidity groups, from the healthcare provider's perspective. Methods: We carried out a cost comparison study in a sample of patients consecutively recruited between 2003 and 2005 from a functional unit for prostate cancer treatment in Catalonia (Spain). The use of services up to 6 months after the treatment start date was obtained from hospital databases and direct costs were estimated by micro-cost calculation. Information on the clinical characteristics of patients and treatments was collected prospectively. Costs were compared by using nonparametric tests comparing medians (Kruskall-Wallis) and a semi-logarithmic multiple regression model. Results: Among the 398 patients included, the cost difference among treatments was statistically significant: medians were &euro;3,229.10, &euro;5,369.00 and &euro;6,265.60, respectively, for the groups of patients treated with external 3D conformal radiotherapy, brachytherapy and radical retropublic prostatectomy, (p<0.001). In the multivariate analysis (adjusted R²=0.8), the average costs of brachytherapy and external radiotherapy were significantly lower than that of prostatectomy (coefficient -0.212 and -0.729, respectively). Conclusions: Radical prostatectomy proved to be the most expensive treatment option. Overall, the estimated costs in our study were lower than those published elsewhere. Most of the costs were explained by the therapeutic option and neither comorbidity nor risk groups showed an effect on total costs independent of treatment