Search

Simple Summary: Improved outcomes have been reported with adjuvant treatment combining cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy, in high-risk patients with ER-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer, regardless of age. In this real-world data analysis, MonarchE and NataLEE high-risk patients accounted for 9.5% and 33% of patients undergoing upfront surgery, respectively. Significantly higher eligibility rates were observed in patients who underwent a mastectomy, >70 years and ≤40 years for adjuvant abemaciclib and ribociclib, and in patients >80 years for ribociclib. A higher discontinuation rate for abemaciclib was reported in patients ≥65 years and it can be assumed that discontinuation rates may increase with more older patients. If the results of the NataLEE trial translate into clinical practice, the number of patients potentially eligible for adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors may increase, especially in the elderly population. Background: Despite early diagnosis, approximately 20% of patients with ER-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer (BC) will experience disease recurrence. Improved survival has been reported with adjuvant treatment combining cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy, in high-risk patients with ER-positive and HER2-negative BC, regardless of age. Older patients have higher rates of ER-positive/HER2-negative BC than younger patients. Methods: In this real-world data analysis, MonarchE and NataLEE high-risk patients accounted for 9.5% and 33% of patients undergoing upfront surgery, respectively. Significantly higher eligibility rates were observed in patients who underwent a mastectomy, >70 years and ≤40 years for adjuvant abemaciclib and ribociclib, and in patients >80 years for ribociclib. Results: Eligibility rates in patients ≤40 years and >80 years who underwent mastectomy were 27.8% and 24.7% for abemaciclib, respectively, and 56.6% and 65.2% for ribociclib, respectively. A higher discontinuation rate for abemaciclib was reported in patients aged ≥65 years and it can be assumed that discontinuation rates may increase in even older patients. Conclusions: If the results of the NataLEE trial translate into clinical practice, the number of patients potentially eligible for adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors may increase, especially in the elderly population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Omission of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) in patients undergoing mastectomy with sentinel node (SN) isolated tumor cells (ITC) or micrometastases is discussed. We evaluated the impact of cALND omission on survival in breast cancer (BC) patients treated by mastectomy with SN ITC or micrometastases. Among 554 BC, the non-SN involvement rate was 13.2%. With a median follow-up of 66.46 months, multivariate analysis showed that cALND omission was significantly associated with overall survival (OS, HR: 2.583, p = 0.043), disease-free survival (DFS, HR: 2.538, p = 0.008), and metastasis-free survival (MFS, HR: 2.756, p = 0.014). For Her2-positive or triple-negative patients, DFS was significantly impacted by cALND omission (HR: 38.451, p = 0.030). In ER-positive Her2-negative patients, DFS, OS, RFS, and MFS were also significantly affected (HR: 2.358, 3.317, 2.538, 2.756). For 161 patients ≤ 50 years with ER-positive/Her2-negative BC, OS and BCSS were notably associated with cALND omission (HR: 103.47 and 50.874). These findings suggest a negative prognostic impact of cALND omission in patients with SN micrometastases or ITC. Omission of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) in patients undergoing mastectomy with sentinel node (SN) isolated tumor cells (ITC) or micrometastases is debated due to potential under-treatment, with non-sentinel node (NSN) involvement detected in 7% to 18% of patients. This study evaluated the survival impact of cALND omission in a cohort of breast cancer (BC) patients treated by mastectomy with SN ITC or micrometastases. Among 554 early BC patients (391 pN1mi, 163 ITC), the NSN involvement rate was 13.2% (49/371). With a median follow-up of 66.46 months, multivariate analysis revealed significant associations between cALND omission and overall survival (OS, HR: 2.583, p = 0.043), disease-free survival (DFS, HR: 2.538, p = 0.008), and metastasis-free survival (MFS, HR: 2.756, p = 0.014). For Her2-positive or triple-negative patients, DFS was significantly affected by cALND omission (HR: 38.451, p = 0.030). In ER-positive Her2-negative BC, DFS, OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and MFS were significantly associated with cALND omission (DFS HR: 2.358, p = 0.043; OS HR: 3.317; RFS HR: 2.538; MFS HR: 2.756). For 161 patients aged ≤50 years with ER-positive/Her2-negative cancer, OS and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were notably impacted by cALND omission (OS HR: 103.47, p = 0.004; BCSS HR: 50.874, p = 0.035). These findings suggest a potential negative prognostic impact of cALND omission in patients with SN micrometastases or ITC. Further randomized trials are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Treatment of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas relies on surgery and chemotherapy, potentially followed by bevacizumab and/or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). The modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) is a pragmatic indicator of tumor primary chemosensitivity. Although it is well established that BRCA mutations are associated with platinum sensitivity, the relationship between BRCA status and KELIM score has yet to be elucidated. This study aimed to evaluate the interactions between BRCA and KELIM, and their respective prognostic values., Methods: We retrospectively collected data from 743 patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas included in a French nationwide registry (NCT03275298) treated with neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by surgery. We analyzed the interactions between BRCA and KELIM, and their impacts on progression-free survival and overall survival., Results: BRCA -mutated (BRCA m) patients had higher standardized KELIM than BRCA -wild type ( BRCA wt) tumors (median 1.16 vs 1.06, respectively; p=0.001). The prognostic value of the KELIM score was independent of BRCA in multivariate analyses. KELIM score and BRCA could be combined to define three prognostic groups: (1) an unfavorable prognostic group with both BRCA wt and unfavorable KELIM (median progression-free survival 12.0 months); (2) an intermediate prognostic group with either BRCA m and unfavorable KELIM, or BRCA wt and favorable KELIM (median progression-free survival of 16.0 and 18.8 months, respectively; HR 0.64 compared with the unfavorable group, p<0.001); and (3) a favorable prognostic group with both BRCA m and favorable KELIM (median progression-free survival 28.8 months; HR 0.37 compared with the unfavorable group, p<0.001)., Conclusions: The KELIM score provides complementary prognostic information with respect to BRCA, and discriminates different prognoses within BRCA m or BRCA wt patients. Patients with both BRCA wt/unfavorable KELIM have a poor prognosis, underscoring the urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: J-MC: reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Vifor, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, outside the submitted work. LC: reports non-financial support from Pharmamar and GSK, outside the submitted work. P-EC: reports personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. AD: reports non-financial support from Monaco Age Oncologie, outside the submitted work. TMR: reports personal fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Clovis Oncology, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mylan, Tesaro, and Norvartis; grants from Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Seagen; a non-financial advisory role for the French National Cancer Institute, Arcagy, and Unicancer, outside the submitted work. LG: reports personal fees from Viatris, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. FJ: reports personal fees from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Byaer, EISAI, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Seagen, and Viatris; non-financial support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyer Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Ipsen, EISAI, and Chugai, outside the submitted work. EL: reports personal fees from Strycker, outside the submitted work. PP: reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp and Dohme, PharmaMar, and Roche, outside the submitted work. CP: reports personal fees from Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pharmamar, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, outside the submitted work. RS: reports grants from AstraZeneca; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, EISAI, Seagen, and Novartis; non-financial support from Merck Sharp and Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. IR-C: reports personal fees from Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Deciphera, GlaxoSmithKline, Macrogenics, Merck Sereno, Mersena, Novartis, Oxnea, Roche, Bristol-Meyer Squibb, and Merck Sharp and Dohme, outside the submitted work. MR: reports non-financial support from AstraZeneca; grants from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Meyer Squibb; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. BY: reports personal fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, GSK-TESARO, Bayer, Roche-Genentech, ECS Progastrine, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, Bristol-Meyer Squibb, Seagen, Myriad, Menarini, Gilead, and EISAI, outside the submitted work. EB, OB, LB, MCa, MCh, OC, HC, CG, FM, TP, BS, and A-MS have nothing to disclose., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is an unavoidable development of ovarian cancer, from the first treatment to relapses, and is the main cause of patients death. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), is a hope for cure for patients with ovarian cancer. HIPEC is based on direct application of chemotherapy on the perioneum with high concentration of chemotherapy enhanced with specific effects of hyperthermia. Theoretically, HIPEC could be proposed at different steps of ovarian cancer development. But the hypothesis of efficiency of a new treatment must be assessed before being routinely applied. Numerous clinical series are already published about HIPEC used in primary treatment of ovarian cancer or for relapses. These series are mostly retrospectives and based on heterogeneous parameters as inclusion criteria of patients, intra peritoneal chemotherapy, concentration, temperature, duration of HIPEC. Taking into account this heterogeneity it is not possible to draw strong scientific conclusions about HIPEC efficiency to treat ovarian cancer patients. We proposed a review allowing a better understanding of current recommendations of the use of HIPEC in ovarian cancer patients., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)