Glioblastoma is a disease with a poor prognosis. Multiple efforts have been made to improve the long-term outcome, but the 5-year survival rate is still 5–10%. Recurrence of the disease is the usual way of progression. In this situation, there is no standard treatment. Different treatment options can be considered. Among them would be reoperation or reirradiation. There are different studies that have assessed the impact on survival and the selection of patients who may benefit most from these strategies. Chemotherapy treatments have also been considered in several studies, mainly with alkylating agents, with data mostly from phase II studies. On the other hand, multiple studies have been carried out with target-directed treatments. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody with anti-angiogenic activity, has demonstrated activity in several studies, and the FDA has approved it for this indication. Several other TKI drugs have been evaluated in this setting, but no clear benefit has been demonstrated. Immunotherapy treatments have been shown to be effective in other types of tumors, and several studies have evaluated their efficacy in this disease, both immune checkpoint inhibitors, oncolytic viruses, and vaccines. This paper reviews data from different studies that have evaluated the efficacy of different forms of relapsed glioblastoma.

Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is a common tumor associated with high mortality. To date, the standard chemotherapy-based treatment has yielded suboptimal outcomes, characterized by limited survival and a substantial impact on patients’ quality of life. The introduction of new therapies has significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates. However, bringing novel treatments into clinical practice comes with an unfamiliar toxicity profile that may influence the choice of systemic therapy. The aim of this review is to analyze the toxicity of these new therapies and reflect on the role of appropriate management in treatment selection and planning of therapeutic sequencing in patients with mUC.

Extrapulmonary small-cell carcinoma (SCC) is a rare neoplasm that shares certain features with its pulmonary counterpart and occurs predominantly in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). It is a high-grade and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumor, usually diagnosed in advanced stages, with a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options in that setting. This is a case report of a 77-year-old Spanish male patient with localized SCC of the colon, who presented a pathological complete response in the surgical specimen after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide. To date, 5 years after surgery, the patient remains without evidence of tumor recurrence. As clinical guidelines for the management of this entity are lacking, and therefore its management has not been standardized, an attempt to summarize the current evidence in the literature was made.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The management of special situations—including recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombosis at unusual sites, and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis (CVC-AT)—remains particularly challenging because of the limited availability of high-quality evidence. This narrative review synthesizes recommendations from major international and Spanish clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus documents, including those from SEOM, ESMO, ASCO, NCCN, ITAC and SEMI, to provide a structured framework for the management of these complex scenarios. Our analysis identified substantial heterogeneity across guidelines, particularly regarding anticoagulant selection, dosing strategies, and treatment duration. Although some convergence exists in the management of CVC-AT, important discrepancies and evidence gaps persist in areas such as splanchnic vein thrombosis, hepatic impairment, central nervous system involvement, and recurrent VTE despite treatment. In many cases, recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion rather than robust trial data, and several clinical scenarios are addressed by only a limited number of guidelines. These findings underscore the need for more standardized management strategies and prospective clinical studies to better inform decision-making in daily practice. Overall, this review highlights the growing importance of individualized anticoagulant management aimed at balancing thrombotic and bleeding risks in high-risk oncology patients, thereby helping to bridge the gap between expert consensus and evidence-based precision anticoagulation.