Search

Background: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis., Results: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms., Conclusions: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors after progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure., Competing Interests: Disclosure IRC reports honoraria (personal) from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche, and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; research grant/funding (self) from MSD, Roche, and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK. AL reports grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi; consulting fees from Seattle Genetics; honoraria/reimbursement and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees or continuing medical education from Ability Pharma, Biocad, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, TouchCongress, and Zentalis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ARIEL4 and TROPHIMMUNE. SP reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and PharmaMar; and research funding (institution) from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. AGM reports advisory/consultancy fees (personal) from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Illumina, ImmunoGen, MSD, Macrogenics, Mersana, Novartis, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Regeneron, Sotio, and Sutro; speaker bureau fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Novocure, Takeda, Zai Lab, and Clovis; research grant/funding (institution) from Roche, Novartis, GSK, and Aravive; and steering committee member (personal) for MSD. CM reports honoraria/consulting fees (personal) from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; participation on an advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; and travel expenses from Roche and AstraZeneca. SN reports honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Mochida, MSD, Takeda, and Terumo; and research grant (self) from AstraZeneca. IV reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; contracted research funding (via KULeuven) from Oncoinvent AS; corporate sponsored research funding from Amgen and Roche; and accommodation and travel expenses from Karyopharm. NC reports research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, and Eisai; honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, BIOCAD, ImmunoGen, Mersana Therapeutics, Eisai, and OncXerna Therapeutics; and is a steering committee member on ESMO clinical guidelines and a scientific committee chair for Acto Onlus. JM reports honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. FS reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK Tesaro, MSD, Sandoz (Novartis), and Clovis Oncology; and institutional financial support from Roche, GSK Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, MSD, Incyte, and Agenus. JS reports grants or contracts from Roche Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, GSK, Lilly, Tesaro, consulting fees from Tesaro, Merck, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche Pharma, GSK, MSD, Eisai, Novocure, Oncoinvent, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Tesaro, GSK, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bayer, Roche, PharmaMar, Vifor Pharma, Hexal AG, Novartis Pharma. DL reports consultancy fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, Novartis, and Seagen; membership on an advisory board (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Oncoinvest, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; and travel support from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. EMGA reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca–MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK–Tesaro, PharmaMar, and Roche; speaker bureau/expert testimony honorarium from AstraZeneca–MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; and travel support from Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Baxter. GB reports consulting or advisory board roles for AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK; and has received funding for medical conferences from AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK. CLP reports advisory/consultancy honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Daiichi–Sanko; and other travel/accommodation/medical congress expenses from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and MSD. PB reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and congress and travel support from GSK and PharmaMar. AL reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Tesaro; speaker honoraria from Clovis Oncology and Roche; and participation in a medical congress for Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, and Roche. AB reports honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Tesaro. JM reports advisory board fees (personal) from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Eli Lilly; and non-financial traveling facilities from Pfizer. AEB reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and GSK; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca and Olympus; and participation in a medical congress for PharmaMar and AstraZeneca. MR reports advisory board fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Immunocore; advisory board fees and research grant (personal/institution) from MSD; and research grant (institution) from BMS. TWPS reports honoraria (advisory role, expert testimony and lectures, participation in clinical trials, other financial relationships, e.g. travel) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, MSD, NCO, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. CD reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. DD reports consulting or advisory roles (personal) for AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, Roche, Eisai Germany, and MSD Oncology; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, MSD, Intuitive Surgical, and KLS Martin. BY reports consulting fees (personal) from MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK–Tesaro, Bayer, Roche–Genentech, ECS Progastrin, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, SEAGEN, and Myriad. EPL reports lecture fees, speaker’s bureau fees, and travel support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and Roche; lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, Incyte, and Pfizer; and is employed by ARCAGY Research. PH reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis Oncology, Stryker, MSD Oncology, Zai Lab, Lilly, Sotio, Eisai, and GSK; consulting/advisory roles from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, Merck, GSK, Clovis Oncology, and Immunogen; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, and Clovis Oncology. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antitumor activity of molecular-targeted agents is guided by the presence of documented genomic alteration in specific histological subtypes. We aim to explore the feasibility, efficacy and therapeutic impact of molecular profiling in routine setting., Patients and Methods: This multicentric prospective study enrolled adult or pediatric patients with solid or hematological advanced cancer previously treated in advanced/metastatic setting and noneligible to curative treatment. Each molecular profile was established on tumor, relapse or biopsies, and reviewed by a molecular tumor board (MTB) to identify molecular-based recommended therapies (MBRT). The main outcome was to assess the incidence rate of genomic mutations in routine setting, across specific histological types. Secondary objectives included a description of patients with actionable alterations and for whom MBRT was initiated, and overall response rate., Results: Four centers included 2579 patients from February 2013 to February 2017, and the MTB reviewed the molecular profiles achieved for 1980 (76.8%) patients. The most frequently altered genes were CDKN2A (N = 181, 7%), KRAS (N = 177, 7%), PIK3CA (N = 185, 7%), and CCND1 (N = 104, 4%). An MBRT was recommended for 699/2579 patients (27%), and only 163/2579 patients (6%) received at least one MBRT. Out of the 182 lines of MBRT initiated, 23 (13%) partial responses were observed. However, only 0.9% of the whole cohort experienced an objective response., Conclusion: An MBRT was provided for 27% of patients in our study, but only 6% of patients actually received matched therapy with an overall response rate of 0.9%. Molecular screening should not be used at present to guide decision-making in routine clinical practice outside of clinical trials.This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774409., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Physicians need well-addressed clinical trials assessing benefits and harm of treatments to avoid under-treatment or over-treatment of elderly patients. The main objectives of this report were to present an overview of end points used in clinical trials dedicated to elderly patients; and to assess the evolution in chosen end points before and after the creation of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology in the early 2000s., Patients and Methods: All phases I, II and III trials dedicated to the treatment of cancer among elderly patients published between 2001 and 2004 and between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. All phase III clinical trials assessing cancer treatments among adults in the same periods were also reviewed to identify subgroup analyses of elderly patients among these trials., Results: Among phase III trials dedicated to elderly patients, overall survival was a common primary end point. Interestingly, tumor centered end points were very common in the first time period and very uncommon in the second time period, whereas composite end points were very uncommon in the first time period but very common in the second time period. Concerningly, disease-specific survival was very infrequently reported in dedicated clinical trials of elderly patients despite their importance in evaluating competing risk of death from non-oncology causes. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as a primary end point remained very uncommon but the reporting of PROs as a secondary end point tended to increase in the second time period, from 19% to 33% (P = 0.10). Functional status was infrequently reported., Conclusion: During the past decade, the use of clinically meaningful end points such as PROs and functional status in elderly patients remained moderate. Yet, the use of PROs as a secondary end point tended to increase between the two time periods., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Physicians need clinical trials assessing benefits and harms of treatments to avoid under-treatment or over-treatment of elderly patients. The main objectives of this report were to examine how data regarding elderly oncology patients were presented in medical literature; and to assess the evolution of this presentation between two time periods., Patients and Methods: All phases I, II and III trials dedicated to the treatment of cancer among elderly patients published between 2001 and 2004 and between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed. All phase III clinical trials assessing cancer treatments among adults in the same periods were also reviewed to evaluate potential subgroup analyses in elderly patients in these studies. Key characteristics of interest were extracted by two investigators before descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken., Results: A total of 1084 trials were included: 366 and 718 from the first and second time period, respectively. Twenty-seven and 193 of these trials were phase I and II trials dedicated to elderly or frail patients, respectively. A large proportion of phase III trials published between 2011 and 2014 reported at least one analysis dedicated to elderly patients (46.7%) versus 19.3% during the first time period. The use of subgroup analyses of elderly patients in phase III trials was the most frequent source of information. Subgroup analyses were more frequent among trials with industrial funding, trials published in high impact factor journal, intercontinental trials and trials with large sample size. The age threshold defining the elderly subgroup increased over time., Conclusion: Elderly patients have become a topic of interest during the past decade. However, data available are mostly extracted from subgroup analyses, which can only be regarded as preliminary evidence., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Several expression array studies identified molecular apocrine breast cancer (BC) as a subtype that expresses androgen receptor (AR) but not estrogen receptor α. We carried out a multicentre single-arm phase II trial in women with AR-positive, estrogen, progesterone receptor and HER2-negative (triple-negative) metastatic or inoperable locally advanced BC to assess the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone., Patients and Methods: Patients with a metastatic or locally advanced, centrally reviewed, triple-negative and AR-positive (≥10% by immunohistochemistry, IHC) BC were eligible. Any number of previous lines of chemotherapy was allowed. AA (1000 mg) was administered once a day with prednisone (5 mg) twice a day until disease progression or intolerance. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 6 months defined as the proportion of patients presenting a complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) ≥6 months. Secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety., Results: One hundred and forty-six patients from 27 centres consented for IHC central review. Of the 138 patients with sufficient tissue available, 53 (37.6%) were AR-positive and triple-negative, and 34 of them were included from July 2013 to December 2014. Thirty patients were eligible and evaluable for the primary end point. The 6-month CBR was 20.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.7%-38.6%], including 1 CR and 5 SD ≥6 months, 5 of them still being under treatment at the time of analysis (6.4+, 9.2+, 14.5+, 17.6+, 23.4+ months). The ORR was 6.7% (95% CI 0.8%-22.1%). The median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI 1.7%-5.4%). Fatigue, hypertension, hypokalaemia and nausea were the most common drug-related adverse events; the majority of them being grade 1 or 2., Conclusions: AA plus prednisone treatment is beneficial for some patients with molecular apocrine tumours and five patients are still on treatment., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT01842321., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Determination of drug safety and tolerability is usually based on the frequency of certain key adverse events (AEs) rather than the frequency of all-grade toxicities. We assessed the reporting of key AEs in oncology randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and compared that with the expectations of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) membership., Materials and Methods: RCTs reports published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed regarding the reporting of key AEs, namely: grade 3/4 AEs, grade 5 AEs, and AEs resulting in study withdrawal or in dose reduction. Study characteristics associated with better reporting of key AEs were investigated. Finally, a survey was conducted among the EORTC membership to determine their expectations on key AEs reporting., Results: Although the frequency of grade 3/4 was reported in most reports (96%), only 17% of them described the reporting threshold above which grade 3/4 AEs were included for reporting, raising the possibility that important but less frequent grade 3/4 AEs might be underreported. Frequency and nature of grade 5 AEs were adequately reported in 161 (50%) of manuscripts; AEs leading to study withdrawal in 61 manuscripts (19%); and AEs leading to dose reduction in 43 manuscripts (13%). In contrast, most EORTC members expected a comprehensive reporting of grade 5 AEs (96% of EORTC member's responses), AEs leading to study withdrawal (86%) and AEs leading to dose reduction (70%). In multivariate analysis, frequencies of grade 5 AEs were less frequently reported in European trials (P = 0.004). Frequencies of AEs leading to withdrawals were more frequently reported in trials funded by industry (P = 0.005) and in trials including patients with breast or urological cancers (P = 0.006)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that current practice of key AEs reporting remains highly variable and sometimes inadequate in oncology RCTs reports. Current standards for safety reporting in RCTs should be revised to emphasize the importance of key AEs reporting., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance was extended in 2013 to provide a set of specific recommendations regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). There is limited data regarding how well current publications of oncology RCTs report PROs if assessed using these guidelines., Design: All phase III medical oncology RCTs published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed according to the 2013 PROs CONSORT recommendations and an 11-point PROs reporting quality score (PRORQS) was defined based on the criteria., Results: The majority of trials did not report on PROs at all (201 of 325; 62%). Of the remaining 124 trials, the mean PRORQS score was 5.0 on an 11-point scale. The items related to methods of PROs collection and analysis were poorly reported (Description of the prespecified PRO hypothesis: 26% of RCTs; methods for PRO data collection (paper, telephone, electronic, other): 16%; statistical approaches for managing missing data: 37%). The only factor significantly associated with improved PROs reporting was where PROs reporting was the subject of a dedicated secondary manuscript, as was the case in 36 of the 124 (29%) of RCTs., Conclusion: Despite their clinical relevance, our findings show that some aspects of PROs reporting may greatly be improved, especially critical methodological aspects of PROs collection and analysis. The exceptions were where PROs were described in PROs-specific secondary publication. Use of the 2013 PROs CONSORT extensions should be encouraged and their effects on PROs reporting subsequently reassessed., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Changes in serum tumor biomarkers may indicate treatment efficacy. Traditional tumor markers may soon be replaced by novel serum biomarkers, such as circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor nucleic acids. Given their promising predictive values, studies of their kinetics are warranted. Many methodologies meant to assess kinetics of traditional marker kinetics during anticancer treatment have been reported. Here, we review the methodologies, the advantages and the limitations of the analytical approaches reported in the literature. Strategies based on a single time point were first used (baseline value, normalization, nadir, threshold at a time t), followed by approaches based on two or more time points [half-life (HL), percentage decrease, time-to-events…]. Heterogeneities in methodologies and lack of consideration of inter- and intra-individual variability may account for the inconsistencies and the poor utility in routine. More recently, strategies based on a population kinetics approach and mathematical modeling have been reported. The identification of equations describing individual kinetic profiles of biomarkers may be an alternative strategy despite its complexity and higher number of necessary measurements. Validation studies are required. Efforts should be made to standardize biomarker kinetic analysis methodologies to ensure the optimized development of novel serum biomarkers and avoid the pitfalls of traditional markers.

Background: To prevent potential drug-drug interaction, lists of cautioned or prohibited (C/P) drugs are commonly included in protocols of phases I and II cancer trials. Heterogeneity among lists may affect patient eligibility and comparability of results., Methods: Protocols of phase I/II trials conducted at an academic cancer centre between 2004 and 2009 were reviewed. All C/P drugs were collected and compared among trials., Results: Of 100 protocols reviewed, 77 protocols include lists of C/P drugs to prevent CYP3A4-, 2C9- and 2C19-related interactions and/or QT interval prolongation. Sixty-five protocols evaluating 38 unique study drugs include lists of CYP3A4-related C/P drugs. These lists contain 0-137 inhibitors [coefficient of variation (CV): 123%], 0-20 inducers (CV: 57%) and 10-157 substrates (CV: 76%). There is a high degree of inconsistency among protocols of the same study drug or from the same originator. Heterogeneity is also common for lists of C/P CYP2C9 and 2C19 drugs and for QT interval prolongation drugs. Approximately 20% protocols contain potential sources of confusion in their drug lists., Conclusions: There is high degree of heterogeneity among lists of drugs C/P in protocols of oncology phase I/II trials. There is an urgent need to standardize these lists.

Background: Early identification of patients at high risk for chemoresistance among those treated with methotrexate (MTX) for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is needed. We modeled human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) decline during MTX therapy using a kinetic population approach to calculate individual hCG clearance (CL(hCG)) and assessed the predictive value of CL(hCG) for MTX resistance., Patients and Methods: A total of 154 patients with low-risk GTN treated with 8-day MTX regimen were retrospectively studied. NONMEM was used to model hCG decrease equations between day 0 and day 40 of chemotherapy. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis defined the best CL(hCG) threshold. Univariate/multivariate survival analyses determined the predictive value of CL(hCG) and compared it with published predictive factors., Results: A monoexponential equation best modeled hCG decrease: hCG(t) = 3900 x e(-0.149 x t). Median CL(hCG) was 0.57 l/day (quartiles: 0.37-0.74). Only choriocarcinoma pathology [yes versus no: hazard ratio (HR) = 6.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-16.6; P < 0.001] and unfavorable CL(hCG) quartile (< or =0.37 versus >0.37 l/day: HR = 6.75; 95% CI 2.7-16.8; P < 0.001) were significant independent predictive factors of MTX resistance risk., Conclusion: In the second largest cohort of low-risk GTN patients reported to date, choriocarcinoma pathology and CL(hCG) < or =0.37 l/day were major independent predictive factors for MTX resistance risk.

Background: The aim of this study was to analyze demography, motivation behind the choice of the medical oncology specialty, career plans, and the quality of training in medical oncology and to provide guidance to candidates for boosting the number of oncologists., Methods: In 2007, the French Association of Residents in Oncology conducted a nationwide study of all medical oncology residents in France., Results: The strongest factors that had influenced their decision to become a medical oncology specialist were an interest in medical oncology (98%), exposure to this branch of medicine during graduate training as a medical student (83%), interest in research (81%), and the diversity of the activity (75%). The mean score for the quality of training was 6 (0-10). More time for reading during working hours as well as for attending staff meetings and greater availability of teaching oncologists would improve the quality of training. The most popular career choice was working in a public hospital but most residents stated that they had not received adequate information about the different career plans., Conclusions: No data are available regarding how training in medical oncology is perceived. This study provides useful data for future policies to boost the number of oncologists.