Search

Background: Colorectal cancer is the ninth leading cause of death in Spain. The latest therapeutic developments in the advanced stages of this disease are the oral drugs trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib. Objective: Results of clinical trials (CTs) are not in real conditions and therefore, we want to study the effectiveness and the safety profile in the usual clinical practice and compare it with the bibliography. Materials and Methods: A retrospective and unicentric study was carried out in a health area of 500,000 inhabitants. Patients who started treatment with regorafenib and/or trifluridine/tipiracil were included from the date of marketing until June 2019. Patient-related variables, pathology, effectiveness, and treatment toxicity were collected. The statistical analysis was carried out with the PSPP program. Results: Fifty-four patients were analyzed. Men accounted for 59.3% of patients. Regorafenib was the treatment for 22.2% of patients and 77.8% received trifluridine/tipiracil. The reason for the drug's suspension was the disease progression in 85.2% of patients. No patient had a full response and 3.2% achieved partial response. The median progression-free survival time in treatments with regorafenib was 2.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0–5.4) and the overall survival time was 3.1 months (95% CI: 0.0–6.7), while in treatments with trifluridine/tipiracil, these data were, respectively, 2.8 (95% CI: 2.5–3.2) and 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.8–7.6). Side effects occurred in 91.7% of patients treated with regorafenib and in 100% of treated with trifluridine/tipiracil. Hematological adverse reactions were, on average, 0.4 ± 0.5/patient with regorafenib and 1.5 ± 0.9 with trifluridine/tipiracil. General (77.8%) and gastrointestinal disorders (50%) were common with both drugs. Conclusions: The effectiveness results of standard clinical practice are lower than those described in CTs and in the literature. The toxicity profile does reproduce what is described in the bibliography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Historia y Politica: Ideas, Procesos y Movimientos Sociales is the property of Departamento De Historia del Pensamiento y de los Moviemientos Sociales y Politicos (Madrid) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Ramiro de Maeztu's short book Inglaterra en armas(1916) has remained largely unnoticed by critics. A chronicle of its author's visit to the Western Front in the middle stages of the First World War, it is a puzzling text which is hard to fit in with the rest of Maeztu's intellectual production. In this essay I will argue that the text is only comprehensible when we insert it within a larger genre that appeared in Spain between 1914 and 1918: the crónicas del frente written by Spanish intellectuals and journalists for the newspapers, and which they afterwards published in book form. Through an analysis of similar works by Azaña, Azorín, Valle-Inclán, Pérez de Ayala and Álvaro Alcalá Galiano, I aim to demonstrate that the more puzzling features of Inglaterra en armas are due to the constraints imposed by the pro-Allied propaganda discourse in which this text was participating. These constraints were brought about by the active efforts of the Allied propaganda apparatus, but also by these authors’ pre-existing sympathies and agendas, as well as by the literary and intellectual conventions of the time. What emerges is an approximation of the complex operations that Spanish intellectuals and foreign governments engaged in throughout the First World War. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]