Search

In the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT), the 5-year rates of recurrence of breast cancer were significantly lower among premenopausal women who received the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression than among those who received tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. The addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not result in significantly lower recurrence rates than those with tamoxifen alone. Here, we report the updated results from the two trials.Premenopausal women were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in SOFT and to receive tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in TEXT. Randomization was stratified according to the receipt of chemotherapy.In SOFT, the 8-year disease-free survival rate was 78.9% with tamoxifen alone, 83.2% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 85.9% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.009 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression). The 8-year rate of overall survival was 91.5% with tamoxifen alone, 93.3% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 92.1% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.01 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression); among the women who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy, the rates were 85.1%, 89.4%, and 87.2%, respectively. Among the women with cancers that were negative for HER2 who received chemotherapy, the 8-year rate of distant recurrence with exemestane plus ovarian suppression was lower than the rate with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (by 7.0 percentage points in SOFT and by 5.0 percentage points in TEXT). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 24.6% of the tamoxifen-alone group, 31.0% of the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, and 32.3% of the exemestane-ovarian suppression group.Among premenopausal women with breast cancer, the addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen resulted in significantly higher 8-year rates of both disease-free and overall survival than tamoxifen alone. The use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression resulted in even higher rates of freedom from recurrence. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the two groups that received ovarian suppression than in the tamoxifen-alone group. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT and TEXT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066690 and NCT00066703 , respectively.).

BACKGROUND: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and bevacizumab are active agents in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We carried out a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of PLD and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in MBC patients. METHODS: Bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) and PLD (20 mg/m(2)) were infused on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Thereafter, bevacizumab monotherapy was continued at the same dose until progression or toxicity. The primary objective was safety and tolerability, and the secondary objective was to evaluate efficacy of the combination. RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 43 patients were assessable for the primary end point. Eighteen of 39 patients (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 63%) had a grade 3 toxicity. Sixteen (41%) had grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, one had grade 3 mucositis, and one severe cardiotoxicity. Secondary end point of overall response rate among 43 assessable patients was 21%. CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized single-arm trial, the combination of bimonthly PLD and bevacizumab in locally recurrent and MBC patients demonstrated higher than anticipated toxicity while exhibiting only modest activity. Based on these results, we would not consider this combination for further investigation in this setting.

The 1st St. Gallen EORTC Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference 2012 Expert Panel clearly differentiated treatment and staging recommendations for the various gastroesophageal cancers. For locally advanced gastric cancer (>= PT3N+), the preferred treatment modality was pre- and postoperative chemotherapy. The majority of panel members would also treat T2N+ or even T2N0 tumours with a similar approach mainly because pretherapeutic staging was considered highly unreliable. It was agreed that adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (AEG) is classified best according to Siewert et al. Preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) is the preferred treatment for AEG type I and II tumours. For AEG type III, i.e. tumours which may be considered as gastric cancer, perioperative chemotherapy is the majority approach. For resectable squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus a clear majority recommended radiochemotherapy followed by surgery as optimal approach, irrespective of tumour size. In contrast, definitive RCT was judged appropriate for advanced tumours with extended lymph node involvement (N2) or for cancers of the upper oesophagus. Additional recommendations are presented on the use of endosonography, PET-CT scan and laparoscopy for staging and on the preferred approach to surgery. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: The anti-angiogenic drug, bevacizumab (Bv), is currently used in the treatment of different malignancies including breast cancer. Many angiogenesis-associated molecules are found in the circulation of cancer patients. Until now, there are no prognostic or predictive factors identified in breast cancer patients treated with Bv. We present here the first results of the prospective monitoring of 6 angiogenesis-related molecules in the peripheral blood of breast cancer patients treated with a combination of Bv and PLD in the phase II trial, SAKK 24/06. Methods: Patients were treated with PLD (20 mg/m2) and Bv (10 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each 4-week cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles, followed by Bv monotherapy maintenance (10 mg/m2 q2 weeks) until progression or severe toxicity. Plasma and serum samples were collected at baseline, after 2 months of therapy, then every 3 months and at treatment discontinuation. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (Quantikine, R&D Systems and Reliatech) were used to measure the expression levels of human vascular endothelial growth factor (hVEGF), placental growth factor (hPlGF), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (hMMP9) and soluble VEGF receptors hsVEGFR-1, hsVEGFR-2 and hsVEGFR-3. The log-transformed data (to reduce the skewness) for each marker was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to determine if there was a difference between the mean of the subgroups of interest (where α = 0.05). The untransformed data was also analyzed in the same manner as a "sensitivity" check. Results: 132 blood samples were collected in 41 out of 43 enrolled patients. Baseline levels of the molecules were compared to disease status according to RECIST. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean of the log-transformed levels of hMMP9 between responders [CR+PR] versus the mean in patients with PD (p-value=0.0004, log fold change=0.7536), and between patients with disease control [CR+PR+SD] and those with PD (p-value=

Introduction: Trastuzumab (T) is a cornerstone in the treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing advanced breast cancer and development of resistance to T is a major therapeutic problem. HER-2 is part of a highly interactive signaling network that may impair efficacy of endocrine therapy. A sequential treatment design was chosen in this trial to ensure complete resistance to single agent therapy before receiving both a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) and T. Any kind of clinical activity with combined treatment of AI and T after progression of single agent treatments could indicate restoration of sensitivity as a consequence of cross-talking and networking between both pathways. Methods: Key eligibility criteria included postmenopausal patients (pts.) with advanced, measurable, HER-2 positive (assessed by FISH, ratio (≥2)), HR positive disease and progression on prior treatment with a non-steroidal AI, e.g. letrozole or anastrozole, either in an adjuvant or advanced setting. Pts. received standard dose T monotherapy either weekly or three-weekly in step 1 and upon disease progression, continued T in combination with letrozole in step 2. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit response (CBR: CR, PR or SD for at least 24 weeks (+/- 1 week) according to RECIST) in step 2. Results: Thirteen pts. were enrolled in five centers in Switzerland. In step 1, six pts. (46%) achieved CBR. Median time to progression (TTP) was 161 days (Range: 50 - 627). Based on data collected until the end of May 2010, CBR was observed in seven out of the eleven evaluable pts. (64%) in step 2, including one pt. with partial response. Four of the seven pts. within step 2 that achieved CBR also had CBR in step 1. Seven out of eleven pts. have documented tumor progression during step 2 treatment. Median TTP for all eleven pts. was 184 days (range 61 - 471). Mean time on study treatment (TTP in step 1 plus TTP in step 2) for pts. reaching step 2 was 380 days (range 174 - 864). Adverse events were generally mild. Conclusion: Results of this proof-of-principle trial suggest that complete resistance to both AI and T can be overcome in a proportion of pts. by combined treatment of AI and T, as all pts. served as their own control. Our results appear promising for a new treatment strategy which offers a chemotherapy-free and well-tolerated option for at least a subset of the pts. with HR positive, HER-2 positive breast cancer. Further trials will need to corroborate this finding.

The benefit of bevacizumab (Bv) has been shown in different tumors including colorectal cancer, renal cancer, pulmonary non-small cell cancer and also breast cancer. However to date, there is no established test evaluating the angiogenic status of a patient and monitoring the effects of anti-angiogenic treatments. Tumor angiogenesis is the result of a balance between multiple pro- and anti¬angiogenic molecules. There is very little published clinical data exploring the impact of the anti-angiogenic therapy on the different angiogenesis-related molecules and the potential role of these molecules as prognostic or predictive factors.

Background This open-label, phase III trial compared chemoradiation followed by surgery with or without neoadjuvant and adjuvant cetuximab in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma. Patients and methods Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to two cycles of chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cisplatin 75 mg/m2) followed by chemoradiation (45 Gy, docetaxel 20 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2, weekly for 5 weeks) and surgery, with or without neoadjuvant cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly and adjuvant cetuximab 500 mg/m2 fortnightly for 3 months. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results In total, 300 patients (median age, 61 years; 88% male; 63% adenocarcinoma; 85% cT3/4a, 90% cN+) were assigned to cetuximab (n = 149) or control (n = 151). The R0-resection rate was 95% for cetuximab versus 97% for control. Postoperative treatment-related mortality was 6% in both arms. Median PFS was 2.9 years [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0 to not reached] with cetuximab and 2.0 years (95% CI, 1.5-2.8) with control [hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.07; P = 0.13]. Median overall survival (OS) time was 5.1 years (95% CI, 3.7 to not reached) versus 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.2-4.2) for cetuximab and control, respectively (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52-1.01; P = 0.055). Time to loco-regional failure after R0-resection was significantly longer for cetuximab (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.90; P = 0.017); time to distant failure did not differ between arms (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.64-1.59, P = 0.97). Cetuximab did not increase adverse events in neoadjuvant or postoperative settings. Conclusion Adding cetuximab to multimodal therapy significantly improved loco-regional control, and led to clinically relevant, but not-significant improvements in PFS and OS in resectable esophageal carcinoma. Clinical trial information NCT01107639.

Background COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. Methods A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. Results Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. Conclusion Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was firstly to assess the overall frequency of subjectively experienced symptoms self-reported by patients receiving endocrine therapy and secondly to compare these symptoms with side effects assessed by clinicians in pivotal trials. Methods: Unselected patients with early and advanced breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy were approached consecutively during a routine outpatient visit. They received a questionnaire called Checklist for Patients with Endocrine Therapy (C-PET), a validated self-assessment tool to determine prespecified symptoms associated with endocrine therapy. Data on toxicity were also obtained from previously published trials. Results: 405 patients were approached and 373 agreed to participate in this study. Some symptoms were significantly more often recorded by the women in the adjuvant setting completing the C-PET than by physicians’ reports in pivotal trials: hot flushes/sweats (C-PET 70%, ATAC 40% and BIG1-98 38%), low energy (C-PET 45%, ATAC 15% and BIG1-98 9%), fluid retention (C-PET 22% and BIG1-98 7%) and vaginal dryness (C-PET 30% and BIG1-98 3%). Similar differences were observed in the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Conclusions: A simple tool like the C-PET questionnaire is able to reflect the treatment burden of endocrine therapies and may be helpful to improve communication between patients and care providers. Some symptoms were significantly more often reported by the women in the C-PET than by physicians in pivotal trials.