Search

Background: The aim of this analysis was to investigate the potential impact of Ki67 assay in a series of patients affected by early stage invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) undergone surgery. Methods: Clinical-pathological data were correlated with disease-free and overall survival (DFS/OS). The maximally selected Log-Rank statistics analysis was applied to the Ki67 continuous variable to estimate appropriate cut-offs. The Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) analysis was performed to assess the interaction between 'pure' or 'mixed' histology ILC and Ki67. Results: At a median follow-up of 67 months, 10-years DFS and OS of 405 patients were 67.8 and 79.8 %, respectively. Standardized Log-Rank statistics identified 2 optimal cut-offs (6 and 21 %); 10-years DFS and OS were 75.1, 66.5, and 30.2 % (p = 0.01) and 84.3, 76.4 and 59 % (p = 0.003), for patients with a Ki67 < 6 %, between 6 and 21 %, and >21 %, respectively. Ki67 and lymph-node status were independent predictor for longer DFS and OS at the multivariate analysis, with radiotherapy (for DFS) and age (for OS). Ki67 highly replicated at the internal crossvalidation analysis (DFS 85 %, OS 100 %). The STEPP analysis showed that DFS rate decreases as Ki67 increases and those patients with 'pure' ILC performed worse than 'mixed' histology. Conclusions: Despite the retrospective and exploratory nature of the study, Ki67 was able to significantly discriminate the prognosis of patients with ILC, and the effect was more pronounced for patients with 'pure' ILC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lobular breast carcinoma usually shows poor responsiveness to chemotherapies and often lacks targeted therapies. Since FGFR1 expression has been shown to play pivotal roles in primary breast cancer tumorigenesis, we sought to analyze the status of FGFR1 gene in a metastatic setting of lobular breast carcinoma, since promising FGFR1 inhibitors has been recently developed. Methods: Fifteen tissue metastases from lobular breast carcinomas with matched primary infiltrative lobular breast carcinoma were recruited. Eleven cases showed loco-regional lymph-nodal and four haematogenous metastases. FGFR-1 gene (8p12) amplification was evaluated by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) analysis. Her-2/neu and topoisomerase-IIα gene status was assessed. E-cadherin and Hercept Test were also performed. We distinguished amplification (>6 or cluster of signals) versus gains (3-6 signals) of the locus specific FGFR-1 gene. Results: Three (20%) primary lobular breast carcinomas showed >6 or cluster of FGFR1 signals (amplification), six cases (40%) had a mean of three (range 3-6) chromogenic signals (gains) whereas in 6 (40%) was not observed any abnormality. Three of 15 metastasis (20%) were amplified, 2/15 (13,4%) did not. The ten remaining cases (66,6%) showed three chromogenic signals. The three cases with FGFR-1 amplification matched with those primary breast carcinomas showing FGFR-1 amplification. The six cases showing FGFR-1 gains in the primary tumour again showed FGFR-1 gains in the metastases. Four cases showed gains of FGFR-1 gene signals in the metastases and not in the primary tumours. Her-2/neu gene amplification was not observed in all cases but one (6%) case. Topoisomerase-IIα was not amplified in all cases. Conclusions: 1) a subset of metastatic lobular breast carcinoma harbors FGFR-1 gene amplification or gains of chromogenic signals; 2) a minor heterogeneity has been observed after matching primary and metastatic carcinomas; 3) in the era of tailored therapies, patients affected by the lobular subtype of breast carcinoma with FGFR1 amplification could be approached to the new target biological therapy such as emerging FGFR-1 inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the addition of bevacizumab significantly improves the efficacy of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, regulatory concerns still exist with regard to the magnitude of the benefits and the overall safety profile. Methods: A literature-based meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of benefit and safety of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients was conducted. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were also performed to identify additional predictors of outcome and to assess the influence of trial design. Results: Five trials (3,841 patients) were gathered. A significant interaction according to treatment line was found for progression-free survival (PFS, p = 0.027); PFS was significantly improved for 1st line (Hazard Ratio, HR 0.68, p < 0.0001), with a 1-yr absolute difference (AD) of 8.4% (number needed to treat, NNT 12). A non-significant trend was found in overall survival (OS), and in PFS for 2nd line. Responses were improved with the addition of bevacizumab, without interaction between 1st line (Relative Risk, RR 1.46, p < 0.0001) and 2nd line (RR 1.58, p = 0.05). The most important toxicity was hypertension, accounting for a significant AD of 4.5% against bevacizumab (number needed to harm, NNH 22). Other significant, although less clinically meaningful, adverse events were proteinuria, neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and bleeding. At the meta-regression analysis for 1st-line, more than 3 metastatic sites (p = 0.032), no adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.00013), negative hormonal receptor status (p = 0.009), and prior anthracyclines-exposure (p = 0.019), did significantly affect PFS. Conclusions: Although with heterogeneity, the addition of bevacizumab to 1st-line chemotherapy significantly improves PFS, and overall activity. Hypertension should be weighted with the overall benefit on the individual basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maintenance therapy is emerging as a treatment strategy in the management of advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Initial trials addressing the question of duration of combination chemotherapy failed to show any overall survival benefit for the prolonged administration over a fixed number of cycles with an increased risk for cumulative toxicity. Nowadays several agents with different ways of administration and a different pattern of toxicity have been formally investigated in the maintenance setting. Maintenance strategies include continuing with an agent already present in the induction regimen or switching to a different one. Taking into consideration that no comparative trials of maintenance with different chemotherapy drugs or targeted agents have been conducted, the choice and the duration of maintenance agents is largely empirical. Furthermore, it is still unknown and it remains an open question if this approach needs to be proposed to every patient in the case of partial/complete response or stable disease after the induction therapy. Here, we critically review available data on maintenance treatment, discussing the possibility to tailor the right treatment to the right patient, in an attempt to optimize costs and benefits of an ever-growing panel of different treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To evaluate the therapeutic strategies commonly employed in the clinic for the management of brain metastases (BMs) and to correlate disease outcome with type of treatment and therapeutic resources available at the treating center. Methods: Four Cancer centres participated to the survey. Data were collected through a questionnaire filled in by one physician for each centre. Results: Clinical data regarding 290 cancer patients with BMs from solid tumors were collected. Median age was 59 and 59% of patients had ≤ 3 brain metastases. A local approach (surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery) was adopted in 31% of patients. The local approach demonstrated to be superior in terms of survival compared to the regional/systemic approach (whole brain radiotherapy and chemotherapy, p = <.0001 for survival at 2 years). In the multivariate analysis local treatment was an independent prognostic factor for survival. When patients were divided into 2 groups whether they were treated in centers where local approaches were available or not (group A vs group B respectively, 58% of patients with ≤ 3 BMs in both cohorts), more patients in group A received local strategies although no difference in time to brain progression at 1 year was observed between the two groups of patients. Conclusions: In clinical practice, local strategies should be integrated in the management of brain metastases. Proper selection of patients who are candidate to local treatments is of crucial importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the addition of bevacizumab to 1st line chemotherapy provides a significant survival benefit for advanced colorectal cancer, the magnitudes of both advantages and toxicities have not been extensively investigated. Methods: A literature-based meta-analysis was conducted; Hazard Ratios were extracted from randomized trials for primary end-points (Progression Free Survival, PFS, Overall Survival OS). The log of event-based risk ratio were derived for secondary endpoints (objective/partial response rate, ORR/PR; severe hypertension, bleeding and proteinuria). Absolute differences and the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) were calculated. A meta-regression analysis with clinical predictors and a sensitivity analysis according to the trial phase-design were conducted as well. Results: Five trials (2,728 pts) were selected. The addition of bevacizumab to 1st line chemotherapy significantly increased both PFS (although with significant heterogeneity) and OS over exclusive chemotherapy by 17.1% and 8.6% (NNT 6 and 12), regardless of the study setting (non significant interaction between phase II and III). The chance to improve PR was significantly increased by 6.5% (NNT 15), with a trend for ORR. The risk of hypertension was significantly increased by 6.2% (NNH 16). According to the meta-regression analysis, female gender and rectal primary site were significant predictors for PFS benefit. Conclusions: Notwithstanding all the concerns related to costs and the significant HTN risk, the significant outcome improvement provided by bevacizumab in first-line treatment for unselected advanced colorectal cancer patients, should be considered when choosing the appropriate up-front therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hormone therapy plus radiotherapy significantly decreases recurrences and mortality of patients affected by locally advanced prostate cancer. In order to determine if difference exists according to the hormonal treatment duration, a literature-based meta-analysis was performed. Methods: Relative risks (RR) were derived through a random-effect model. Differences in primary (biochemical failure, BF; cancer-specific survival, CSS), and secondary outcomes (overall survival, OS; local or distant recurrence, LR/DM) were explored. Absolute differences (AD) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Heterogeneity, a meta-regression for clinic-pathological predictors and a correlation test for surrogates were conducted. Results: Five trials (3,424 patients) were included. Patient population ranged from 267 to 1,521 patients. The longer hormonal treatment significantly improves BF (with significant heterogeneity) with an absolute benefit of 10.1%, and a non significant trend in CSS. With regard to secondary end-points, the longer hormonal treatment significantly decrease both the LR and the DM with an absolute difference of 11.7% and 11.5%. Any significant difference in OS was observed. None of the three identified clinico-pathological predictors (median PSA, range 9.5-20.35, Gleason score 7-10, 27-55% patients/trial, and T3-4, 13-77% patients/trial), did significantly affect outcomes. At the meta-regression analysis a significant correlation between the overall treatment benefit in BF, CSS, OS, LR and DM, and the length of the treatment was found (p=0.03). Conclusions: Although with significant heterogeneity (reflecting different patient' risk stratifications), a longer hormonal treatment duration significantly decreases biochemical, local and distant recurrences, with a trend for longer cancer specific survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Molecularly targeted agents for the treatment of solid tumors had entered the market in the last 5 years, with a great impact upon both the scientific community and the society. Many randomized phase III trials conducted in recent years with new targeted agents, despite previous data coming from preclinical research and from phase II trials were often promising, have produced disappointingly negative results. Some other trials have actually met their primary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant result favouring the experimental treatment. Unfortunately, with a few relevant exceptions, this advantage is often small, if not negligible, in absolute terms. The difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance should always be considered when translating clinical trials' results in the practice. The reason why this 'revolution' did not significantly impact on cancer treatment to displace chemotherapy from the patient' bedside is in part due to complicated, and in many cases, unknown, mechanisms of action of such drugs; indeed, the traditional way the clinical investigators were used to test the efficacy of 'older' chemotherapeutics, has become 'out of date' from the methodological perspective. As these drugs should be theoretically tailored upon featured bio-markers expressed by the patients, the clinical trial design should follow new rules based upon stronger hypotheses than those developed so far. Indeed, the early phases of basic and clinical drug development are crucial in the correct process which is able to correctly identify the target (when present). Targeted trial designs can result in easier studies, with less, better selected, and supported by stronger proofs of response evidences, patients, in order to not waste time and resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is a debated issue in clinical oncology. Although it is considered a standard for resected stage II-IIIA patients according to the available guidelines, many questions are still open. Among them, it should be acknowledged that the treatment for stage IB disease has shown so far a limited (if sizable) efficacy, the role of modern radiotherapies requires to be evaluated in large prospective randomized trials and the relative impact of age and comorbidities should be weighted to assess the reliability of the trials' evidences in the context of the everyday-practice. In addition, a conclusive evidence of the best partner for cisplatin is currently awaited as well as a deeper investigation of the fading effect of chemotherapy over time. The limited survival benefit since first studies were published and the lack of reliable prognostic and predictive factors beyond pathological stage, strongly call for the identification of bio-molecular markers and classifiers to identify which patients should be treated and which drugs should be used. Given the disappointing results of targeted therapy in this setting have obscured the initial promising perspectives, a biomarker-selection approach may represent the basis of future trials exploring adjuvant treatment for resected NSCLC.