Search

Introduction: In France, 40% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer are ≥70 years old, but these are under-represented in clinical trials. Using data from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) platform on Lung Cancer (LC), the objective is to provide an overview of the management and the prognosis of older patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (AM-NSCLC) in a real-world context., Materials and Methods: From the ESME-LC database, we selected patients with AM-NSCLC (stage IIIB, IIIC, and IV), diagnosed between 2015 and 2019, and who received first-line systemic treatment. Demographics, tumour characteristics, and treatment received were described in patients ≥70, and compared to younger ones. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the multivariable Cox model., Results: Among 10,002 patients with AM-NSCLC, the median age was 64 years, with 2,754 (27.5%) aged ≥70. In comparison with patients <70, older patients were more often male, with worse performance status and more comorbidities, but they were less underweight and more often non-smokers. The proportion of EGFR mutated non-squamous NSCLC was higher in older patients (25.0% vs 12.8%, p < 0.001), particularly among smokers and former smokers (12.7% vs 7.3%, p < 0.001). Among patients ≥70, 76.6% received first-line chemotherapy (including 67.0% treated with a platinum-based doublet), 15.0% received only targeted therapy, and 11.0% received immunotherapy (alone or in combination). Median first-line rwPFS was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = [4.8;5.4]) for patients ≥70 and 4.6 months (95%CI = [4.4;4.8]) for patients <70, but age was not associated with rwPFS in multivariable analysis. Median OS was 14.8 months (95%CI = [13.9;16.1]) for patients ≥70 and 16.7 months (95%CI = [15.9;17.5]) for patients <70, with a significant effect of age in multivariable analysis for patients treated with chemotherapy and/or with targeted therapy, but not for patients treated with immunotherapy (alone or in combination with chemotherapy)., Discussion: In this real-world cohort of patients with AM-NSCLC, age was not associated with first-line rwPFS regardless of treatment received, nor with OS for patients receiving immunotherapy. However, OS was significantly shorter for patients aged ≥70 treated with chemotherapy or with targeted therapy alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Mathilde Cabart reports non-financial support from Janssen, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Loïc Mourey reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. David Pasquier has nothing to disclose. Sophie Schneider has nothing to disclose. Hervé Léna reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from Lilly, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Nicolas Girard reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work; and Family Member employee of AstraZeneca. Christos Chouaid reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Aventis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Viatris, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Chugai, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Roland Schott reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from IPSEN, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. Sandrine Hiret reports non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Novartis, other from Sanofi, other from Astra Zeneca, other from Takeda, other from BMS, outside the submitted work. Didier Debieuvre has nothing to disclose. Xavier Quantin has nothing to disclose. Anne Madroszyk has nothing to disclose. Pascale Dubray-Longeras reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Eric Pichon reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. Anne Baranzelli has nothing to disclose. Grégoire Justeau has nothing to disclose. Maurice Pérol reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Lise Bosquet has nothing to disclose. Bastien Cabarrou has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of daily whole-body cryostimulation (WBC) sessions during 5 consecutive days on wellness and sleep parameters in healthy young men and women. Twenty healthy subjects (9 women; 11 men) aged 23.1 ± 2.6 years old participated in this randomized protocol, with 5 consecutive days with (CRYO) or without WBC (CONT) exposure. Sleep was analyzed over the 5 nights in each condition. Sleep quality and quantity were assessed via actimetry, cerebral activity and questionnaires. Nocturnal heart rate variability (HRV) was also recorded and questionnaires were given to assess wellness and mood. Repeated WBC exposures had a beneficial impact on mood and anxiety. It also improved subjective sleep quality (scored from 3.6 ± 0.5 pre to 3.9 ± 0.3), especially in women. Also, repeated WBC sessions modulated sleep architecture by increasing slow wave sleep duration (+7.3 ± 16.8 min) during the nights without impacting other sleep parameters, nor nocturnal HRV. In conclusion, repeated WBC seems to be an effective strategy to improve slow wave sleep duration in healthy young subjects. The reported psychological improvements may better benefit women than men., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The RAS/MEK signaling pathway is essential in carcinogenesis and frequently altered in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), notably by KRAS mutations (KRASm) that affect 25%-30% of non-squamous NSCLC. This study aims to explore the impact of KRASm subtypes on disease phenotype and survival outcomes., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics database for advanced or metastatic lung cancer from 2011 to 2021. Patient demographics, histology, KRASm status, treatment strategies, and outcomes were assessed., Results: Of 10 177 assessable patients for KRAS status, 17.6% had KRAS p.G12C mutation, 22.6% had KRAS non-p.G12C mutation, and 59.8% were KRASwt. KRASm patients were more often smokers (96.3%) compared with KRASwt (85.8%). A higher proportion of programmed death-ligand 1 ≥50% was found for KRASm patients: 43.5% versus 38.0% (P < 0.01). KRASm correlated with poorer outcomes. First-line median progression-free survival was shorter in the KRASm than the KRASwt cohort: 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7-4.3 months] versus 5.1 months (95% CI 4.8-5.3 months), P < 0.001. First-line overall survival was shorter for KRASm than KRASwt patients: 12.6 months (95% CI 11.6-13.6 months) versus 15.4 months (95% CI 14.6-16.2 months), P = 0.012. First-line chemoimmunotherapy offered better overall survival in KRAS p.G12C (48.8 months) compared with KRAS non-p.G12C (24.0 months) and KRASwt (22.5 months) patients. Second-line overall survival with immunotherapy was superior in the KRAS p.G12C subgroup: 12.6 months (95% CI 8.1-18.6 months) compared with 9.4 months (95% CI 8.0-11.4 months) for KRAS non-p.G12C and 9.6 months (8.4-11.0 months) for KRASwt patients., Conclusion: We highlighted distinct clinical profiles and survival outcomes according to KRASm subtypes. Notably KRAS p.G12C mutations may provide increased sensitivity to immunotherapy, suggesting potential therapeutic implications for sequencing or combination of therapies. Further research on the impact of emerging KRAS specific inhibitors are warranted in real-world cohorts., Competing Interests: Disclosure QDT received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi and meeting/travel support from Amgen and Sanofi. CC received grants or contracts, consulting fees, personal/institutional honoraria, and meeting/travel support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. TF received personal/institutional honoraria from Janssen, Lilly, and Roche. JRM received grants or contracts from MSD, received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Edimark, Janssen, MSD, Sanofi, Roche, and Takeda and meeting/travel support from Ose-Immunotherapeutics. MP received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novocure, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from Anheart Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pharmamar and Roche. CAV received consulting fees or meeting/travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GJ received meeting/travel support from Sanofi. SH received personal/institutional honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and meeting/travel support from Novartis and Sanofi. AS received consulting fees from Exafield and Guidepoint; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Amgen and Roche; and is a board member of the SFFPO. EP received personal/institutional honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Takeda and Amgen; and participated in an advisory board for Takeda. NG declared research grants/support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merk Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sivan; consultative services for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Ipsen Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Takeda; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Hoffmann-La Roche; and employment of a family member with AstraZeneca. PDR received meeting/travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Summit Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for Sanofi and Takeda. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the second most common cancer that metastasizes to the brain. Particularly up to half of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may develop brain metastases over the course of the disease. Nevertheless, little is known about the prevalence and the outcome of brain and leptomeningeal metastases (BLMM) in HER2-low BC. We compared the cumulative incidence of BLMM and associated outcomes among patients with HER2-low, HER2-negative (HER2-) and HER2+ mBC., Patients and Methods: This cohort study was conducted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) mBC database and included patients treated for mBC between 2012 and 2020 across 18 French comprehensive cancer centers and with known HER2 and hormone receptor (HR) status. The cumulative incidence of BLMM after metastatic diagnosis was estimated using a competing risk methodology with death defined as a competing event., Results: 19 585 patients were included with 6118 (31.2%), 9943 (50.8%) and 3524 (18.0%) being HER2-low, HER2- and HER2+ mBC, respectively. After a median follow-up of 48.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 47.7-49.3 months], BLMM were reported in 4727 patients: 1192 (25.2%) were diagnosed with BLMM at first metastatic diagnosis and 3535 (74.8%) after metastatic diagnosis. Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, histological grade, metastases-free interval and HR status showed that the risk of BLMM at metastatic diagnosis was similar in patients with HER2- compared to HER2-low mBC [odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) 1.00 (0.86-1.17)] and higher in those with HER2+ compared to HER2-low [OR (95% CI) 2.23 (1.87-2.66)]. Similar results were found after metastatic diagnosis; the risk of BLMM was similar in HER2- compared to HER2-low [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) (95% CI) 1.07 (0.98-1.16)] and higher in the HER2+ group [sHR (95% CI) 1.56 (1.41-1.73)]., Conclusions: The prevalence and evolution of BLMM in HER2-low mBC are similar to those in patients with HER2- tumors. In contrast to patients with HER2+ mBC, the prognosis of BLMM remains dismal in this population., Competing Interests: Disclosure WJ declares grants: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca, Eisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chugai Pharma, Pfizer, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Glaxo Smithkline, Roche, Lilly France, Sanofi Aventis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board : AstraZeneca, Eisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Gilead. MA declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Gilead, Pfizer, Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer. FLD declares consulting fees: Novartis, Gilead; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, Daiichi, Lilly, Novartis, Seagen, AZ; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: Daiichi, Lilly, Seagen, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Exact Sciences; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services : Lilly. TF declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Roche, Jansen, Lilly. BP received fees as advisor/consultant from Pierre Fabre (self), Daiichi Sankyo (self), Merck Sharp & Dohme (institution), Seattle Genetics (institution), Eli Lilly (institution) and Novartis (institution); funding to institution for research support from Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca; and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Gilead. JSF declares consulting fees: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Exact Science, MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to compare blood pressure (BP) responses following moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE), high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) in dry land or HIIE in immersed condition, using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Forty-two individuals (65 ± 7 years, 52% men) with a baseline BP ≥ 130/85 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic blood pressures [SBP/DBP]) were randomly assigned to perform one of the three following exercises on a stationary cycle: MICE (24 minutes at 50% peak power output) or HIIE in dry land (two sets of 10 minutes with phases of 15 seconds 100% peak power output interspersed by 15 seconds of passive recovery) or HIIE in up-to-the-chest immersed condition. While MICE modified none of the 24-hour average hemodynamic variables, dryland HIIE induced a 24-hour BP decrease (SBP: -3.6 ± 5.7/DBP: -2.8 ± 3.0 mm Hg, P < .05) and, to a much greater extent, immersed HIIE (SBP: -6.8 ± 9.5/DBP: -3.0 ± 4.5 mm Hg, P < .05). The one condition that modified 24-hour pulse-wave velocity was immersed HIIE (-0.21 ± 0.30 m/s, P < .05)., (Copyright © 2016 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

High blood pressure is a frequent pathology with many cardiovascular complications. As highlighted in guidelines, the therapeutic management of hypertension relies on non-pharmacological measures, which are diet and regular physical activity, but both patients and physicians are reluctant to physical activity prescription. To acquire the conviction that physical activity is beneficial, necessary and possible, we can take into account some fundamental and clinical studies, as well as the feedback of our clinical practice. Physical inactivity is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and hypertension contributes to increase this risk. Conversely, regular practice of physical activity decreases very significantly the risk by up to 60%. The acute blood pressure changes during exercise and post-exercise hypotension differs according to the dynamic component (endurance or aerobic and/or strength exercises), but the repetition of the sessions leads to the chronic hypotensive benefit of physical activity. Moreover, physical activity prescription must take into account the assessment of global cardiovascular risk, the control of the hypertension, and the opportunities and desires of the patient in order to promote good adherence and beneficial lifestyle change., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) is gaining in popularity in fitness centres, even among coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. However, whether HIIE can have deleterious acute effects on the vasculature in CHD has not been studied. We hypothesized that when compared with moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE), a single bout of HIIE could lead to vascular damage and increasing numbers of circulating endothelial and platelet microparticles (EMPs, PMPs) in stable, physically fit CHD patients., Methods: Nineteen male CHD patients (aged 62 ± 11 years) underwent, in random order, a single session of HIIE corresponding to 15-second intervals at 100% of peak power output and 15-second passive recovery intervals, and an isocaloric MICE session. EMPs (CD31+ and/or CD62E+ and CD42b-); PMPs (CD42b+); nitrates and nitrites; prostacycline; and troponin T, cardiac form (cTnT), were measured 10 minutes before exercise and 20 minutes, 24 hours, and 72 hours after both exercise sessions., Results: EMPs, PMPs, nitrates and nitrites, prostacycline, and cTnT remained unchanged after both HIIE and MICE exercise sessions. Initial EMP concentration correlated inversely with EMP concentration 20 minutes post exercise, irrespective of exercise modality (r = 0.78, P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: A single HIIE session with very short exercise and passive recovery periods appears safe and does not induce changes to markers of endothelial function. Future studies are required to determine the safety of a long-term HIIE training program., (Copyright © 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare cardiopulmonary responses, exercise adherence, tolerance, and safety of optimized high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) compared with moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF)., Methods: Twenty patients with HFREF (aged 61 ± 9.9 years) were randomly assigned to HIIE corresponding to 2 × 8 minutes of 30-second intervals at 100% of peak power output and 30-second passive recovery intervals and to a 22-minute MICE corresponding to 60% of peak power output. Gas exchange, electrocardiogram, and blood pressure were measured continuously. Cardiac troponin T (cTnT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) were measured before, 20 minutes after, and 24 hours after HIIE and MICE., Results: Cardiopulmonary responses did not differ between MICE and HIIE. Higher exercise adherence and efficiency were observed on HIIE with a similar perceived exertion and time spent above 90% of peak oxygen consumption compared with MICE. Neither HIIE nor MICE caused any significant arrhythmias or increased CRP, BNP, or cTnT., Conclusions: Compared with MICE, HIIE demonstrated a higher exercise adherence and was well tolerated in patients with HFREF, while still providing a high-level physiological stimulus and leaving indices of inflammation (CRP), myocardial dysfunction (BNP), and myocardial necrosis (cTnT) unaffected., (Copyright © 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The <> (SOR) project has been undertaken by the French National Federation of Cancer Centers (FNCLCC) is now part of the French National Cancer Institute. The project involves the development and updating of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) in oncology. In order to answer questions related to venous thromboembolic events (VTE) treatment and to central venous catheter thrombosis (CVCT) management in cancer patients, the SOR elaborated national guidelines, here presented in a short report. It results of a collaborative work with members from three learned societies ("société nationale française de médicine interne": SNFMI, "société française de médicine vasculaire": SFMV and "société française d'anesthésie-réanimation": SFAR).

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) disease, as defined by the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, occurs among 4 to 20% of patients with cancer and is a leading cause of death among these patients. Use of classical anticoagulation to treat VTE in a cancer patient is associated with a higher risk of major bleeding and of VTE recurrence as compared to noncancer patients. Updated comprehensive and systematic review of current data from the medical literature allows to reconsider the classical approach used for anticoagulant treatment in cancer patients and to implement adapted recommendations. In 2008, the use of daily subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for at least three to six months is recommended as first line therapy to treat VTE disease in cancer patients. If LMWH are contra-indicated (renal insufficiency), other therapeutic approaches are warranted, such as use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) with early introduction of anti-vitamin K for at least three months or venous cava filter in case of absolute contra-indications to anticoagulation. VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients relies on the same therapeutic approaches as currently used for noncancer patients at high risk of VTE. The definition of more specific prophylactic approaches for patients with cancer considered at higher risks of VTE, will be the subject of many clinical trials in the forthcoming years.

Context: The validity of the recommendations is based on their actualisation as well as on the quality of the initial elaboration process. Therefore the "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) from the National French federation of comprehensive cancer centres (FNCLCC) has set up a literature monitoring process., Objectives: To identify new data, which are likely to modify existing recommendations, evaluate their impact and inform potential users on their validity., Methods: The monitoring process is based on 3 main steps lead in collaboration with experts: collect data, select and classify information and analyse information. Analysis of information consists of comparing the conclusions of new data with the conclusions of the initial report and then to identify the recommendations that need to be updated., Results: This article presents the 2005 monitoring report concerning "the use of positron emission tomography with FDG in the management of breast cancer, ovarian cancer and uterin cancer". Following the monitoring process,all the existing recommendations (initial report from 2003) are still valid. However three modifications have been proposed by the working group: 1) increased level of evidence concerning the use of PET-scan for suspicion of local or metastatic recurrence (option, level of evidence: A); 2) a new option for the use of PET-scan for revealed cervix cancer recurrence, especially for the therapeutic decision strategy (level of evidence: B2); and 3) new formulation (less strict) of the recommendation concerning the use of PET-scan in the management of endometrial cancer.

Context: The National French federation of comprehensive cancer centres (FNCLCC) and the French society of dermatology (SFD) initiated together the update of clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma in collaboration with the French national cancer institute and with specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. This work is based on the methodology developed in the "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project., Objectives: To update SOR guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma previously validated in 1998 and French melanoma consensus conference published by SFD and ANAES in 1995., Methods: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts who define the CPGs according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. Once the guidelines have been developed, they are reviewed by independent reviewers., Results: This article is a summary version of the updated clinical practice guidelines with algorithms. The main questions addressed by the expert group in this update concerned (1) The new AJCC-UICC classification (2) Excision margins (3) Sentinel node biopsy (4) Adjuvant treatments (5) Initial staging and follow up of operated patients.

Context: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French regional cancer centers, and specialists from French Public Universities, General Hospitals and Private Clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients., Objectives: To elaborate clinical practice guidelines for patients with stomach adenocarcinoma. These recommendations cover the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of these tumors., Methods: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. The Standards, Options and Recommendations are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement., Results: This guidelines presents the synthesis of the data concerning the evaluation of the therapeutic ones. The main questions concern the type of gastrectomy to realize (Total Gastrectomy or gastrectomy subtotal), the extent of the lymphadenectomy (D2, D3 versus D1, D3, D2 versus D4) and the role of postoperative chemotherapy and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy.

Context: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, which started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), the 20 French Regional Cancer Centres, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients., Objectives: To update clinical practice guidelines for first line palliative chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously validated in 1995, then updated in 1997 and published again in 1998. These recommendations do not cover second line treatment., Methods: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts who define the CPGs according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. Once the guidelines have been developed, they are reviewed by independent reviewers., Results: This article is a summary version of the updated clinical practice guidelines with algorithms. The main questions addressed by the expert group in this update concerned (1) Which patients should be treated? (2) What is the best treatment duration? (3) Which treatment should be administered? The new data identified concerning which patients to treat and the duration of treatment were consistent with the data presented in the initial report and did not modify the original recommendations from 1997. The new data available represent stronger evidence than those in the original report (Two good-quality meta-analyses published since 1997). A new guideline concerning patients who are 75 years old or more has been added. Concerning, the new evidence identified has modified the guidelines for the therapeutic schema to adopt from 1997. These modifications concern irinotecan, oxaliplatin, oral fluoropyrimidines and methotrexate. Treatment with irinotecan or oxaliplatin associated with continuous 5FU infusion, modulated with folinic acid (LV5FU2-like) has become a standard. The use of oral fluoropyrimidines has become an option for patients who refuse hospitalisation or treatment by infusion. The use of methotrexate combined with 5FU is no longer recommended.

Context: "The Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French regional cancer centers, and specialists from French Public Universities, General Hospitals and Private Clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients., Objectives: To elaborate clinical practice guidelines for patients with stomach adenocarcinoma. These recommendations cover the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of these tumors., Methods: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. The Standards, Options and Recommendations are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement., Results: Adjuvant radiation therapy alone is not a standard treatment for patients with stomach adenocarcinoma. Adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is not a standard treatment for patients with stage II or III stomach adenocarcinoma R0, with Dl or D2 lymphadenectomy who have undergone surgery. Following surgical resection, adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy should be proposed to patients without denutrition with a lymphadenectomy < Dl (fewer than 15 lymph nodes examined) and those with T3 and/or N+ tumours following the protocol used in the MacDonald trials (SWOG-9008) (Level of evidence B1). Adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy can be administered to patients without denutrition with DI or D2 lymphadenectomy and with involvement of regional lymph nodes (N2 or N3).

Context: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, which started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French Regional Cancer Centers. and specialists from French public universities,general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients., Objectives: To update clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with salivary gland malignant tumors previously validated in 1997. These recommendations cover diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with these tumors., Methods: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts who define the CPGs according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. Once the guidelines have been defined, the document is submitted for review by independent reviewers., Results: This article presents the updated clinical practice guidelines concerning irradiation of patient with salivary gland tumors. The main recommendations are: 3 dimensional conformal radiotherapy (with or without intensity modulation) or 2D irradiation can be used; for surgical complete resected patients, postoperative photon radiotherapy should not be used in case of low grade stage I and 11 tumors(standard, level of evidence B2) but should be used for high grade stage II, II and IV tumors and for low grade stage III and IV tumors(standard, level of evidence B2). Neutron therapy should not be used in all of these cases (standard, level of evidence D); for patients presenting an incomplete macroscopic or microscopic surgical residual disease, postoperative irradiation must be delivered(standard). Neutron or photon therapy can be either delivered (options); for non operable patients neutron or photon therapy can be either delivered (options, level of evidence B2); for unresectable tumors or in case of recurrent neoplasms, exclusive neutron therapy or surgical tumor reduction combined with postoperative photon beam irradiation can be proposed (options, level of evidence C).

Context: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, which started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French Regional Cancer Centers, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients., Objectives: To update clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with salivary gland malignant tumors previously validated in 1997. These recommendations cover diagnosis, classification, treatment and follow-up of patients with these tumors., Methods: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts who define the CPG s according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. Once the guidelines has been defined, the document is submitted for review by independent reviewers., Results: This article is a summary version of the full document presenting the updated clinical practice guidelines with algorithms. The main questions addressed by the expert group in this update concern the place of fine needle aspiration biopsy in preoperative diagnosis, the place of cervical lymph node area surgical treatment, the place of postoperative irradiation and neutron therapy in the treatment of unresectable tumors and also the place of medical imaging, especially RMI, for the diagnosis of these tumors., (Copyright John Libbey Eurotext 2003.)