Search

Introduction: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is a rare and aggressive cancer with no specifically established therapeutic strategy in the metastatic setting. Combinations of tyrosine kinase and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are a promising option. We aimed to study the immune landscape of metastatic pRCC, and its interactions with angiogenesis pathways, to search for potential therapeutic targets., Methods: The expression of immune markers (PD-L1, PD-1, PD-L2, LAG-3) and angiogenic pathways (CAIX, c-MET), was analyzed by immunohistochemistry on 68 metastatic pRCC retrieved from a retrospective multicenter GETUG cohort. Our primary endpoint was to estimate the prevalence of PD-L1 expression and its prognostic impact in metastatic pRCC. Secondary endpoints included the evaluation of other immune markers (PD-1, PD-L2, and LAG-3) and their association with PD-L1. We also assessed angiogenic markers and their association with PD-L1., Results: Overall, 27.9 % of tumors were PD-L1 positive. PD-L2 was more frequently expressed (45.6 %), PD-1 and LAG-3 were positive in 17.6 % and 19.1 % respectively. None of these markers was correlated with PD-L1 expression. 66 % (45/68) expressed at least one immune marker, and 43 % (29/68) were "double-positive", as they expressed both immune and angiogenic markers. OS was significantly shorter for patients with PD-L1 positive pRCC. A multivariate analysis confirmed a significant association between PD-L1 expression and shorter overall survival (HR = 4.0, p = 0.01)., Conclusion: These results reinforce clinical data on the expected benefit of ICI in metastatic pRCC treatment, as PD-L1 expression is a factor of poor prognosis in this multicenter cohort., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The CPS+EG scoring system was initially described in unselected early breast cancer (eBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), leading to refined prognostic stratification, and thus helping to select patients for additional post-NAC treatments. It remains unknown whether the performance is the same in new biological breast cancer entities such as the HER2-low subtype., Patients and Methods: Outcomes (disease-free (DFS) and overall survival OS)) of 608 patients with HER2-non amplified eBC and treated with NAC were retrospectively analyzed according to CPS-EG score. We compared the prognostic stratification abilities of the CPS+EG in HER2-low and HER2-0 eBC, analyzing ER+ and ER- tumors separately., Results: In ER+ eBC, the CPS+EG scoring system seems to retain a prognostic value, both in HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors, by distinguishing populations with significantly different outcomes (good: score 0-1, poor: score 2-3, and very poor: score 4-5). Using C-indices for DFS and OS, CPS+EG provided the highest prognostic information in ER+ eBC, especially in HER2-0 tumors. In contrast, in ER- eBC, the CPS+EG does not appear to be able to distinguish different outcome groups, either in HER2-low or HER2-0 tumors. In ER- eBC, C-indices for DFS and OS were highest for pathological stage, reflecting the predominant prognostic importance of residual disease in this subtype., Conclusions: HER2-low status does not influence the prognostic performance of the CPS+EG score. Our results confirm the usefulness of the CPS+EG score in stratifying the prognosis of ER+ eBC after NAC, for both HER2-0 and HER2-low tumors. For ER- eBC, HER2-low status does not influence the performance of the CPS+EG score, which was lower than that of the pathological stage alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The Head and Neck Cancer International Group (HNCIG) has undertaken an international modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the essential data variables to be included in a minimum database for HNC research. Endorsed by 19 research organisations representing 34 countries, these recommendations provide the framework to facilitate and harmonise data collection and sharing for HNC research. These variables have also been incorporated into a ready to use downloadable HNCIG minimum database, available from the HNCIG website., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: HM is the director and a shareholder of Warwickshire Head and Neck Clinic; chair of the Head and Neck Cancer International Group (HNCIG); and past president of the British Association of Head and Neck Oncologists. HM also reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca; Speakers Bureau on MSD, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck; research Funding from GSK Biologicals, MSD, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK Plc, AstraZeneca; travel Accommodation Expenses from Sanofi, Pasteur, MSD, Merck. AP has the following disclosures: Advisory board member with honoraria: Merck Serono, Roche, MSD, Astrazeneca, BMS, Bayer, Pfizer& Medical Education with honoraria: Medscape, Prime Oncology, Funding for research support: KURA, BMS, Merck Serono, Roche, BI, Genesis. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: This multicenter Phase I study (NCT03585465) evaluated nivolumab in combination with 3 metronomic chemotherapy (MC) regimens in children with refractory/relapsing solid tumors., Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the three regimens METHODS: Patients aged < 18 years were enrolled. Nivolumab was combined with cyclophosphamide and vinblastine (arm A), capecitabine (arm B), or cyclophosphamide, vinblastine and capecitabine (arm C). Arm A and B were allocated sequentially. Arm C opened only if A and B were deemed safe. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated over the first two cycles. Patients were evaluable if they received > 2 cycles and > 70% of the planned dose., Population: Sixteen patients were enrolled, 3 in arm A, 6 in arm B, and 7 in arm C. Median age was 11.5 years (range, 5-19). Patients previously received a median of 3.5 (range, 1-4) lines of systemic treatment, 14 patients had surgery and 11 had radiotherapy., Results: Median number of cycles was 2 (1-24), median treatment duration was 56 days (18-714). In arm C, median number of cycles was 4 with median treatment duration of 95 days. No DLT was observed. Grade 3 adverse events (AE) and serious AE were observed in 8 patients (50%) and 1 patient (6%), respectively, over the first 2 cycles. No grade 4 AE occurred. The 6-month PFS and OS were 12% and 44%, respectively, in the whole population. Prolonged stable disease was observed in a high-grade glioma and an atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor., Conclusion: Arm C appears safe. A randomized phase II trial evaluating the addition of nivolumab to the triple MC is ongoing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Nivolumab and funding has been provided by BMS. NA has had an advisory role for Bayer and Partners Therapeutics and receives grants (institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb and drugs for a trial from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Pfizer, travel support from Roche; Speaker's Honoraria for Alection, he further has IDMC roles for Accord Healthcare. IA receives speaker’s honoraria from Alection. BG has had an advisory role for AstraZeneca and IDMC roles for trials sponsored by Roche and Novartis. Speaker's Honoraria - Bayer. PC speaker’s honoraria from Alection. NEW receives drug for a trial from Novartis, speaker’s honoraria from Alection, Eusapharma & Novartis. PL receives drug from BMS for a trial and speaker’s honoraria from Alection. MCLD, CL, AP, LW, CFC, GRV, VM and AB declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To describe first-line treatment patterns, overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) in young women (<40) with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), as compared to women aged 40-69., Materials and Methods: Data on adult women diagnosed with mBC (2008-2017) were extracted from the ESME mBC database (NCT03275311) which includes consecutive patients starting first-line metastatic treatment in one of the 18 French Comprehensive cancer centers. We reported first-line therapeutic strategy and prognostic factors of OS and rwPFS for women aged < 40 and 40-69., Results: In total, 14,897 mBC women were included (1512 aged <40). HR+ /HER2- mBC was the most frequent subtype. First-line treatment differed between young patients and older ones for HR+ /HER2- and Triple Negative (TN) mBC. Median OS for women aged < 40 and 40-69, respectively, was 46.9 and 46.2 months for HR+ /HER2- mBC; 13.5 and 15.2 for TN mBC; and, 60.7 and 55.1 for HER2 + mBC. Median rwPFS under first line treatment was 11.6 and 11.9 months for HR+ /HER2- in women aged < 40 and 40-69, respectively; 5.5 and 5.9 for TN, and, 13.3 and 12.9 for HER2 + . Factors associated with shorter OS and rwPFS were similar for both women aged < 40 and 40-69 and included ≥ 3 metastatic sites, visceral metastases, and longer MFI, with time-varying effects observed for several prognostic factors., Conclusion: Young women presented more frequently with TN and HER2 + subtypes and aggressive mBC than women aged 40-69 did. Prognostic factors of OS and rwPFS were quite similar between age groups and mBC subtypes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and tolerability of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) oxaliplatin plus systemic 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab as frontline treatment in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are unknown., Methods: In this multicenter, single-arm phase II study, patients with CRLM not amenable to curative-intent resection or requiring complex/major liver resection, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, received HAI oxaliplatin and intravenous 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cetuximab, every two weeks until disease progression, limiting toxicity or at least 3 months after complete response or curative-intent resection/ablation. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR)., Results: 35 patients, mostly with bilateral (89%), multiple CRLM (>4, 86%; >10, 46%) were enrolled in eight centers. The ORR was 88% (95% CI, 71%-96%) among evaluable patients (n = 32), and 95% (95% CI 70-100%) among the 22 wild-type RAS/BRAF evaluable patients. After a median follow-up of 8.8 years (95% CI, 8.7-not reached), median progression-free survival was 17.9 months (95% CI, 15-23) and median overall survival (OS) was 46.3 months (95% CI, 40.0-not reached). 23 of the 35 patients (66%), including 22 (79%) of the 25 patients with wild-type RAS tumor, underwent curative-intent surgical resection and/or ablation of CRLM. HAI catheter remained patent in 86% of patients, allowing for a median of eight oxaliplatin infusions (range, 1-19). Treatment toxicity was manageable, without toxic death., Conclusion: HAI oxaliplatin plus systemic 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab appears highly effective in the frontline treatment of patients with unresectable CRLM and should be investigated further., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: DM: Consulting/advisory role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bionest Partners, BMS, Incyte, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Simon-Kutcher & Partners, Servier, Taiho. Honoraria for lectures: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Foundation Medicine, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Veracyte, Viatris. Personal fees for a writing engagement: Medscape. Travel expenses for medical congresses: Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Viatris. BV: none. MF: honoraria for lectures: Novartis. Travel expenses for medical congresses: Ipsen. RG: Consulting/advisory role: Pierre Fabre, BMS, Servier, MSD. Honoraria for lectures: MSD, Servier, Ipsen, BMS, Viatris. Travel expenses for medical congresses: MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA). CC: none. JE: Consulting/advisory role: MSD, Eisai, BMS, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, Basilea, Merck Serono, Incyte, Servier, Beigene. Travel expenses for medical congresses: Amgen. Research funding (institutional): BMS, Beigene. MPG: honoraria: Servier, BMS. Travel expenses for medical congresses: AAA, Bayer, Servier, Amgen. LBG: honoraria: AstraZeneca, Servier, KSK, MSD, Bayer, Eisai. DS: travel expenses for medical congresses: Servier, Pierre Fabre. EDB: none. TDB: Consulting/advisory role: Terumo, Boston Scientific. Research funding (institutional): Quantum, Terumo. DG: honoraria for lectures: Merck Serono, Amgen, Sanofi, Servier. PD: Consulting/advisory role: MSD. Honoraria for lectures: AstraZeneca, MSD. Travel expenses for medical congresses: MSD. LL: none. VB: Consulting/advisory role: Merck Serono, Ipsen, Bayer, Eisai, BMS, Roche, AstraZeneca. Honoraria for lectures: Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Bayer, MSD, Amgen, Ipsen, AstraZeneca. Travel expenses for medical congresses: Amgen, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme, Bayer, Roche, MSD, Ipsen, AstraZeneca. Research funding (institutional): Merck Serono. MG: none. JPP: none. MD: honoraria for advisory boards or as a presenter in symposium: Merck Serono, MSD, Amgen, Roche, Bayer, Ipsen, Pfizer, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Sanofi, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early metastatic relapse of triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) after anthracyclins and/or taxanes based (A/T) primary treatment represents a highly aggressive cancer situation requiring urgent characterisation and handling. Epidemio-Strategy-Medico-Economical-Metastatic Breast Cancer (ESME-MBC) database, a multicenter, national, observational cohort (NCT03275311) provides recent data on this entity., Methods: All ESME patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2020 with mTNBC occurring as a relapse after a systemic neoadjuvant/adjuvant taxane and/or anthracycline-based chemotherapy were included. Early relapses were defined by a metastatic diagnosis up to 12 months of the end of neo/adjuvant A/T chemotherapy. We assessed overall survival (OS) and progression-free-survival under first-line treatment (PFS1) by early versus late relapse (≥12 months)., Results: Patients with early relapse (N = 881, 46%) were younger and had a larger tumour burden at primary diagnosis than those with late relapses (N = 1045). Early relapse rates appeared stable over time. Median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI 9.3-10.9) in patients with early relapse versus 17.1 months (95% CI 15.7-18.2) in those with late relapse (adjusted hazard-ratio (aHR): 1.92 (95% CI 1.73-2.13); p < 0.001). The median PFS1 was respectively 3.1 months (95% CI 2.9-3.4) and 5.3 months (95% CI 5.1-5.8); (aHR: 1.66; [95% CI 1.50-1.83]; p < 0.001). Among early relapsed patients, a higher number of metastatic sites, visceral disease but not treatment types, were independently associated with a poorer OS., Conclusion: These real-world data provide strong evidence on the dismal prognosis, higher treatment resistance and major unmet medical need associated with early relapsed mTNBC. Database registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT032753., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Delaloge discloses: Financial interests, all to my institution (advisory boards, speaker activities): AstraZeneca, MSD, Rappta, Besins, Gilead, Elsan. Research and clinical research funding, all to my institution: Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche Genentech, Lilly, Puma, Orion, Amgen, Servier, MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Rappta, Taiho, European Commission, French government, Fondation ARC. Recipient, Horizon 2020 grant MyPeBS. Non-financial interests, personal: Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seagen. Dr. Frenel reports consulting fees from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen. Dr. Jacot reports Grants or contracts from Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo; Payment or honoraria for lectures from Astra Zeneca, Eisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Astra ZenecaEisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen. Dr. Pérol reports grants or contracts from Roche and ESME, payment or honoraria for lectures from Astrazeneca, Bayer, Boehringher-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Ipsen, Roche, Novartis, Merck Sharp And Dohme, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer. Dr. Arnedos reports grants or contracts from Roche and Astrazeneca; Consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Eli-Lilly, Pfizer; Payment or honoraria for lectures from Gilead and Novartis; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Novartis, Astra Zeneca. A Antoine reports a grant from the National French Research and Technology Association (ANRT) and Roche (France) via CIFRE doctoral fellowship no. 2020/1054, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) and collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) are rare entities with a poor outcome. First-line metastatic treatment is based on gemcitabine + platinum chemotherapy (GC) regimen but retrospective data suggest enhanced anti-tumour activity with the addition of bevacizumab. Therefore, we performed a prospective assessment of the safety and efficacy of GC + bevacizumab in metastatic RMC/CDC., Methods: We conducted a phase 2 open-label trial in 18 centres in France in patients with metastatic RMC/CDC and no prior systemic treatment. Patients received bevacizumab plus GC up to 6 cycles followed, for non-progressive disease, by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The co-primary end-points were objective response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months (ORR-6; PFS-6). PFS, overall survival (OS) and safety were secondary end-points. At interim analysis, the trial was closed due to toxicity and lack of efficacy., Results: From 2015 to 2019, 34 of the 41 planned patients have been enroled. After a median follow-up of 25 months, ORR-6 and PFS-6 were 29.4% and 47.1%, respectively. Median OS was 11.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.6-24.2). Seven patients (20.6%) discontinued bevacizumab because of toxicities (hypertension, proteinuria, colonic perforation). Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported in 82% patients, the most common being haematologic toxicities and hypertension. Two patients experienced grade 5 toxicity (subdural haematoma related to bevacizumab and encephalopathy of unknown origin)., Conclusion: Our study showed no benefit for bevacizumab added to chemotherapy in metastatic RMC and CDC with higher than expected toxicity. Consequently, GC regimen remains a therapeutic option for RMC/CDC patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Constance Thibault has received honoraria from AAA, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Ipsen, Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi. Aude Fléchon: None. Laurence Albiges: Advisory or Consulting or Honoraria, (all paid to Institution) Astellas – BMS – Ipsen – Janssen – MSD – Pfizer – EISAI – Roche. Charlotte Joly: has received honoraria from Astellas and Ipsen. Philippe Barthelemy: has received honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Merck, MSD, Novartis, IPSEN, Janssen Cilag, AMGEN, Bayer, Gilead, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Esai, Amgen. Marine Gross-Goupil: Consulting or Advisory Role –Astellas, BMS, Esai, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses – MSD, Bayer, Pfizer. Christine Chevreau: None. Elodie Coquan: Ipsen, Pfizer (paid to institution), Ipsen, MSD, Astra Zeneca, BMS (paid to EQ). Frédéric Rolland: None. Brigitte Laguerre: None. Gweanelle Gravis: Speaker bureau: Janssen, Amgen, BMS, IPSEN, AAA, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Pfizer Merck, Astellas. Recipient institution. Board: Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Curium, Bayer, Pfizer Merck. Recipient my institution. Expert: BMS, Bayer, Pfizer/ merck. Recipient my institution. Travel expense: Janssen, BMS, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Merck. Recipient: GG. Nicolas Pécuchet: is an employee at Dassault Systèmes. Réza-Thierry Elaidi: None. Marc-Olivier Timsit: has received honoraria from Janssen, MSD, Astellas, Ipsen, Olympus. Meryem Brihoum: None. Edouard Auclin: has received honoraria from Amgen Sanofi Genzyme. Aurélien de Reynies: None. Yves Allory: None. Stéphane Oudard has received honoraria from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous reports showed limited efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors as single-agent treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation or ALK/ROS1 fusion. We aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (when eligible) in this patient subgroup., Methods: We conducted a French national open-label multicentre non-randomised non-comparative phase II study in patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, oncogenic addiction (EGFR mutation or ALK/ROS1 fusion), with disease progression after tyrosine kinase inhibitor and no prior chemotherapy. Patients received platinum, pemetrexed, atezolizumab, bevacizumab (PPAB cohort) or, if not eligible to bevacizumab, platinum-pemetrexed-atezolizumab (PPA cohort). The primary end-point was the objective response rate (RECIST v1.1) after 12 weeks, evaluated by blind independent central review., Results: 71 patients were included in PPAB cohort and 78 in PPA cohort (mean age, 60.4/66.1 years; women 69.0%/51.3%; EGFR mutation, 87.3%/89.7%; ALK rearrangement, 12.7%/5.1%; ROS1 fusion, 0%/6.4%, respectively). After 12 weeks, objective response rate was 58.2% (90% confidence interval [CI], 47.4-68.4) in PPAB cohort and 46.5% (90% CI, 36.3-56.9) in PPA cohort. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.3 (95% CI 6.9-9.0) months and 17.2 (95% CI 13.7-NA) months in PPAB cohort and 7.2 (95% CI 5.7-9.2) months and 16.8 (95% CI 13.5-NA) months in PPA cohort, respectively. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.1% of patients in PPAB cohort and 51.4% in PPA cohort; Grade 3-4 atezolizumab-related adverse events occurred in 27.9% and 15.3%, respectively., Conclusion: Combination approach with atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab and platinum-pemetrexed achieved promising activity in metastatic EGFR-mutated or ALK/ROS1-rearranged NSCLC after tyrosine kinase inhibitor failure, with acceptable safety profile., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: O.B reports adviser and consultant for BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Takeda; P.T reports adviser and consultant for Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen-Cillag and Novartis; F.G reports research support from Takeda and Pfizer, adviser and consultant for Amgen, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Pfizer and Takeda; C.R reports research support from AstraZeneca, reports adviser and consultant for BMS, AstraZeneca and Takeda; L.B-G reports adviser and consultant for AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Amgen, Takeda, Viatris, Ipsen and Pfizer; M.G reports research support from BMS and Roche, adviser and consultant for BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Sanofi; C.C reports adviser and consultant for AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Bayer and Amgen; C.Da. reports adviser and consultant for AstraZeneca, BMS and Novartis; A.S. reports adviser and consultant for Roche and Lilly; A-C.T reports adviser and consultant for AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, BMS, Leo Pharma, Amgen, Nutrician, Pfizer; H.D. reports research support from MSD and Pfizer, adviser and consultant BMS, Amgen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Roche; C.De. reports adviser and consultant for AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, BMS, Sandoz, Novartis, Lilly and Pfizer; L.G. reports research support from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda, adviser and consultant for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 study (NCT02477644) showed that addition of olaparib to bevacizumab maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab in older patients in PAOLA-1., Methods: Baseline clinical and molecular data, and PFS, were compared between older (aged ≥65 years) and younger patients (<65 years). Factors associated with olaparib efficacy, and safety in age subgroups, were also assessed., Results: Of 806 randomised patients, 292 (36.2%) were ≥65 years. A lower proportion of older versus younger patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (61.0% versus 76.2%) and upfront surgery (42.0% versus 55.7%). Older patients were less likely to have a BRCA1/2 mutation (17.1% versus 36.7%) or homologous recombination deficiency-positive status (34.1% versus 55.7%). After median follow-up of 22.1 months, median PFS was 21.6 months with olaparib versus 16.6 months with placebo in the older population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.75), comparable with the younger population (median 22.9 versus 16.9 months; HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.77). PFS benefits were observed in patients with a BRCA mutation or homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumours. Incidence of olaparib-related grade ≥3 adverse events in older patients was comparable with that of younger patients (36.8% versus 31.7%) although hypertension and anaemia were more common in older patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred in older patients receiving olaparib., Conclusion: Older patients enrolled in PAOLA-1 achieved similar PFS benefits compared with younger patients, with a similar safety profile., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are associated with a poor prognosis based on retrospective studies evaluating antiangiogenic agents. Few data are available regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with bone metastatic RCC. NIVOREN is a multicentre prospective study in which patients were treated with nivolumab after the failure of antiangiogenic agents. We aim to assess the impact of BM on prognosis, and the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients enrolled in the NIVOREN trial., Materials and Methods: All patients with BM at inclusion were included in our study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and skeletal-related events (SRE)., Results: Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab, 194 presented BM at inclusion. The median follow-up was 23.9 months. Median OS was 17.9 months in patients with BM versus 26.1 months in patients without BM (p = 0.0023). The difference was not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.0707). The median PFS was shorter in patients with BM even after adjustment (2.8 versus 4.6 months, p = 0.0045), as well as the ORR (14.8% versus 23.3%). SRE occurred for 36% of patients with BM. A post-hoc analysis evaluating the impact of bone-targeting agents (BTA) on SRE incidence showed a significant benefit of BTA on the incidence of SRE (OR = 0.367, CI95% [0.151-0.895])., Conclusion: Nivolumab is associated with shorter PFS, and lower ORR in RCC patients with BM. Our study suggests that BTA in association with immunotherapy decreases the incidence of SRE., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MaudVELEV, Cecile Dalban, Florence Joly, Mathieu Laramas, Berangère Narciso, Jean-François BERDAH, Victoria FERRARI, Quentin Dominique THOMAS, Cecile Mione, Florence Tantot and Sylvie Chabaud have nothing to disclose. Christine Chevreau: consulting or advisory role – BMS; Ipsen; Novartis; Pfizer. Travel, accommodations, and expenses – AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfysez-Ipsen. Gwenaelle Gravis: AstraZeneca (Inst); Bayer (Inst); BMS (Inst); IPSEN (Inst); Janssen (Inst); MSD Oncology (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Sanofi/Aventis (Inst). Speaker's: Amgen (Inst); Astellas Pharma (Inst); BMS (Inst); Ipsen (Inst); Janssen Oncology (Inst); MSD Oncology (Inst); Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Research Funding: BMS. Sylvie Negrier: Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; MSD Oncology; Novartis; Pfizer. Consulting or advisory role – Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; MSD Oncology; Novartis; Pfizer. Research Funding: IPSEN (Inst); Pfizer (Inst). Travel, accommodations, and expenses – Bristol-Myers Squibb; IPSEN; Novartis; Pfizer. Brigitte Laguerre: Honoraria: Astellas Pharma; AstraZeneca; Ipsen; Ipsen; Ipsen; Janssen-Cilag; MSD Oncology. Travel, accommodations, and expenses – Astellas Pharma; Janssen; Janssen Oncology; Novartis; Pfizer. Marine Gross-Goupil: consulting or advisory role – Amgen; Astellas Medivation; AstraZeneca; Bayer/Onyx; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; Janssen-Cilag; MSD Oncology; Pfizer; Roche; Sanofi. Research Funding – AstraZeneca (Inst); AstraZeneca (Inst); BMS (Inst); Ipsen (Inst); Janssen-Cilag (Inst); Merck (Inst); MSD Oncology (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst). Sylvain Ladoire: Expert testimony – Astellas Pharma; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; Janssen Oncology; Lilly; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche; Sanofi. Travel, accommodations, and expenses – Astellas Pharma; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; Janssen Oncology; Novartis; Pfizer; Sanofi. Delphine Borchiellini has received consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, and Roche; and travel and accommodations expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche. Lionnel Geoffrois: Honoraria: BMS; Ipsen; Merck serono; Pfizer. Consulting or advisory role – Ipsen. Frank Priou: consulting or advisory role – AstraZeneca. Philippe Barthélémy: Honoraria Astellas Pharma; BMS; IPSEN; Janssen-Cilag; Merck KGaA; MSD; Novartis; Pfizer. Consulting or advisory role – Amgen; AstraZeneca; BMS; Eisai; Ipsen; Janssen-Cilag; Merck KGaA; MSD Oncology; Pfizer. Travel, accommodations, and expenses – Astellas Pharma; BMS; IPSEN; Janssen-Cilag; MSD; Pfizer. Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding from Pfizer; and travel and accommodations expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Hubert Curcio: Honoraria or consultation fees: Bristol Myers Squibb. Stephane Oudard has received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; consulting and advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Roche, and Sanofi; research funding from Ipsen and Sanofi; and travel and accommodation expenses from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Bernard Escudier: Honoraria Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; Oncorena; Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role – AVEO; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; Oncorena; Pfizer. Research Funding - BMS France (Inst). Travel, accommodations, and expenses - Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; MSD. Laurence Albiges: consulting or advisory role – Amgen (Inst); Astellas Pharma (Inst); AstraZeneca (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Corvus Pharmaceuticals (Inst); Exelixis (Inst); Ipsen (Inst); Janssen (Inst); Merck (Inst); MSD (Inst); Novartis (Inst); Peloton therapeutics (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst). Research Funding – Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Travel, accommodations, and expenses – Bristol-Myers Squibb; MSD. Constance Thibault: consulting or advisory role – Astellas/Agensys; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; Janssen; Merck; MSD; Pfizer; Sanofi. Travel, accommodations, and expenses - Astellas/Agensys; Janssen; Sanofi., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapy (ICI-based combination) is a new standard of care for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the frontline setting. Patients with poor performance status (PS) (≥2) were excluded from pivotal trials. Hence, the activity and safety of ICI-based combination therapy in this group of patients is still unknown., Methods: We performed a multicentre retrospective study of PS ≥2 mRCC patients who received frontline ICI-based combination, either nivolumab-ipilimumab (NI) or pembrolizumab-axitinib (AP). Patients' characteristics, clinical outcomes, and toxicity were collected. We analysed overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and grade ≥3 adverse events (G ≥ 3AEs). The association between the predictive biomarker IPI (immune prognostic index) and ORR/PFS/OS was also evaluated., Results: We identified 70 mRCC patients with PS ≥2 treated with ICI-based combination across 14 institutions between October 2017 and December 2021, including 45 and 25 patients were treated with NI and AP, respectively. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years, 51 (73%) were male, only 17 (24%) had prior nephrectomy, 50 (71%) had synchronous metastatic disease at diagnosis, and 16 (23%) had brain metastases. Sixty-one (87%) and 9 (13%) patients had ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) PS 2 and 3, respectively, and 25 (36%) and 45 (64%) patients were intermediate and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, respectively. Among all, 91% were clear cell RCC, 7 patients had sarcomatoid features. At the time of the analysis (median follow-up 11.1 months), 41% patients were dead. Median PFS and mOS in the entire cohort were 5.4 months and 16.0 months, respectively; ORR was 31%. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS, or G ≥3AEs were seen between NI and AP. The intermediate and poor IPI groups were significantly associated with reduced ORR and shorter PFS., Conclusion: We report the first cohort of PS ≥2 mRCC patients treated with frontline ICI-based combination therapy. The survival outcomes in our cohort were inferior to that reported in pivotal trials. No significant differences in ORR, PFS, OS or toxicity were seen between NI and AP. Prospective real-world studies are needed to confirm these results., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement LCA: BMS Belgium Travel, Accommodation and Expenses. EC: Consulting or Advisory Role – BMS; Ipsen; Sanofi; GSK; Eisai; Merck; Janssen; Pfizer; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses – BMS Brazil; Pfizer; IPSEN. BE: Honoraria – Bristol-Myers Squibb; EUSA Pharma; Ipsen; Novartis; Oncorena; Pfizer; Roche/Genentech Consulting or Advisory Role – AVEO; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EUSA Pharma; Ipsen; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche/Genentech Research Funding – BMS France (Inst) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses – Bristol-Myers Squibb; Ipsen; MSD; Pfizer; Roche/Genentech. LA: Consulting fees compensated to the institution for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myer Squibb, Ipsen, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Merck, Amgen, Astellas, Exelixis, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Peloton Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. RM: Honoraria for advisory role and speaker: BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Astellas, Tecnofarma. AF: Honoraria: BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses – BMS; Ipsen; MSD; Pfizer. Rest of authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We investigated the efficacy and safety of afatinib maintenance therapy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with macroscopically complete resection and adjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT)., Methods: This French multicentric randomised phase III double-blind placebo-controlled study included adult patients with ECOG-PS≤2, normal haematological, hepatic and renal functions, and non-metastatic, histologically confirmed HNSCC of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx, with macroscopically complete resection and adjuvant RCT (≥2 cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 J1, J22, J43 and 66Gy (2Gy/fraction, 5 fractions/week, conventional or intensity modulated radiotherapy ≥60Gy). Randomised patients were planned to receive either afatinib (afa arm) or placebo (control arm (C)) as maintenance therapy for one year. Primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). A 15% improvement in DFS was expected at 2 years with afatinib (from 55 to 70%)., Results: Among the 167 patients with resected HNSCC included in 19 cancer centres and hospitals from Dec 2011, 134 patients were randomised to receive one-year maintenance afatinib or placebo (afa:67; C:67). Benefit/risk ratio was below assumptions and independent advisory committee recommended to stop the study in Feb 2017, the sponsor decided premature study discontinuation, with a 2-year follow-up for the last randomised patient. 2y-DFS was 61% (95% CI 0.48-0.72) in the afatinib group and 64% (95% CI 0.51-0.74) in the placebo group (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.70-1.80)., Conclusion: Maintenance therapy with afatinib compared with placebo following post-operative RCT in patients with HNSCC did not significantly improve 2y-DFS and should not be recommended in this setting outside clinical trials., Clinicaltrials: gov identifier NCT01427478., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Three partially overlapping breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) comprising 77, 179 and 313 SNPs have been proposed for European-ancestry women by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) for improving risk prediction in the general population. However, the effect of these SNPs may vary from one country to another and within a country because of other factors., Objective: To assess their associated risk and predictive performance in French women from (1) the CECILE population-based case-control study, (2) BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic variant (PV) carriers from the GEMO study, and (3) familial breast cancer cases with no BRCA1/2 PV and unrelated controls from the GENESIS study., Results: All three PRS were associated with breast cancer in all studies, with odds ratios per standard deviation varying from 1.7 to 2.0 in CECILE and GENESIS, and hazard ratios varying from 1.1 to 1.4 in GEMO. The predictive performance of PRS 313 in CECILE was similar to that reported in BCAC but lower than that in GENESIS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.67 and 0.75, respectively). PRS were less performant in BRCA2 and BRCA1 PV carriers (AUC = 0.58 and 0.54 respectively)., Conclusion: Our results are in line with previous validation studies in the general population and in BRCA1/2 PV carriers. Additionally, we showed that PRS may be of clinical utility for women with a strong family history of breast cancer and no BRCA1/2 PV, and for those carrying a predicted PV in a moderate-risk gene like ATM, CHEK2 or PALB2., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: DS-L and LG coordinated the genotyping of SNPs included in the PRS of the MammoRisk® test commercialized by Predilife until December 2021. This genotyping was performed in the Department of Genetics of the Institut Curie. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom after breast cancer (BC) treatment, significantly impacting patients' quality of life. We aimed to assess the impact of radiation therapy (RT) modalities on fatigue one year after treatment among patients with early-stage BC., Methods: We used CANTO-RT, a subcohort of CANcer TOxicity (CANTO; NCT01993498), a multicentric nationwide prospective cohort of stages I-III BC treated from 2012 to 2017. Our primary outcome was severe global fatigue 1 year after RT completion (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 score ≥40/100). The secondary outcomes included severe physical, emotional and cognitive fatigue (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-FA12). RT-related variables were used as independent variables. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between RT-related variables and fatigue., Results: The final analytic cohort included 3295 patients. The prevalence of severe global fatigue 1 year after treatment was 33.3%. Internal mammary chain RT (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.48 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.13; p = 0.0355]) and normofractionated RT (adjusted OR 1.88 [95% CI 1.06-3.31; p = 0.0298]) were associated with increased odds of severe global fatigue. In addition, there was a significant association between normofractionated RT (adjusted OR 1.849 [95% CI 1.04-3.3; p = 0.0354]) and an increased likelihood of severe physical fatigue., Conclusion: We found a significant association between internal mammary chain RT (versus No), normofractionated RT (versus hypofractionated RT) and increased likelihood of persistent severe global fatigue. Our data add to the current understanding of treatment-related factors affecting fatigue after BC and could lead to personalised interventions to improve the prevention and management of this disabling symptom., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent studies suggest improvements in response to salvage chemotherapy (CT) after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in several types of cancer. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI, compared with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC)., Methods: In this multicentre retrospective study, we included all patients with la/mUC initiating second or third-line chemotherapy from January 2015 to June 2020. We compared patients treated with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI (CT2) and patients treated with third-line chemotherapy after ICI (CT3). The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) in CT3 compared with CT2. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities., Results: Overall, 553 patients were included. ORRs were 31.0% (95% CI, 26.5 to 35.5) and 29.2% (95% CI, 21.9 to 36.6), respectively, in CT2 and CT3, with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.62). In subgroup analyses, no differences in ORR were observed by Bellmunt risk group, type of chemotherapy (platinum or taxanes), duration of response to first-platinum-based chemotherapy (&lt; or ≥ 12 months) or FGFR-status. Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.1) and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.5) in CT2 and CT3, respectively, and grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 35.0% and 22.4% of patients., Conclusion: This large multicentre retrospective study provides clinically relevant real-world data. Chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI in la/mUC achieves ORR and PFS comparable with those obtained in CT2 with an acceptable safety profile. These updated results offer more promising outcomes than historically reported with second-line chemotherapy data., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Besides their development as additional adjuvant treatments, CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy could represent less toxic alternatives to chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with high-risk oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer currently a candidate for chemotherapy. The multicentre, international, randomised phase 2 NEOPAL trial showed that the letrozole-palbociclib combination led to clinical and pathological responses equivalent to sequential anthracycline-taxanes chemotherapy. Secondary objectives included survival outcomes., Methods: Secondary end-points of NEOPAL included progression-free survival (PFS) and invasive-disease free survival (iDFS) in the intent-to-treat population. Exploratory end-points were overall survival (OS) and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) in the intent-to-treat population, as well as iDFS, OS and BCSS according to the administration of chemotherapy., Results: Hundred and six patients were randomised. Pathological complete response rates were 3.8% and 5.9%. Twenty-three of the 53 patients in the letrozole-palbociclib arm received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 40.4 months [0-56.6], 11 progressions have been observed, of which three were in the letrozole-palbociclib and 8 in the control arm. PFS (HR = 1.01; [95%CI 0.36-2.90], p = 0.98) and iDFS (HR = 0.83; [95%CI 0.31-2.23], p = 0.71) did not differ between both arms. The 40 months PFS rate was 86.7% [95%CI 78.0-96.4] and 89.9% [95%CI 81.8-98.7] in letrozole-palbociclib and control arms, respectively. Outcomes of patients who did not receive chemotherapy were not statistically different from those who received it., Conclusions: NEOPAL suggests that a neoadjuvant letrozole-palbociclib strategy may allow sparing chemotherapy in some patients with luminal breast cancer while allowing good long-term outcomes. Larger confirmatory studies are needed., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: SDe, PC and JL report institutional funding for the present trial from Pfizer and Nanostring technologies. SDe reports institutional consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Besins, Sanofi, Rappta; institutional honoraria from AstraZeneca, Seagen, MSD, Pfizer; institutional investigating fees from Taiho, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, G1 therapeutics, BMS, Pfizer, Roche; and personal support for attending US conference from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. FL reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, EISAI, Lilly, Novartis, P Fabre, Roche; support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, EISAI, Lilly, Novartis, P Fabre, Pfizer, Roche; participation on IDMC or advisory boards from AstraZeneca, EISAI, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche. JSF reports personal consulting fees from ROCHE, ASTRA ZENECA, NOVARTIS, DAIICHI, LILLY, PFIZER, CLOVIS, GSK, MSD; honoraria from ASTRA ZENECA, NOVARTIS, DAIICHI, LILLY, PFIZER, CLOVIS, MSD, AMGEN; support for attending meetings from ASTRA ZENECA, NOVARTIS, DAIICHI, LILLY, PFIZER, CLOVIS, MSD; participation on IDMC or advisory board from ASTRA ZENECA, NOVARTIS, DAIICHI, LILLY, PFIZER, CLOVIS, MSD, PIERRE FABRE. PEH reports consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly; and support from Mylan, Eisei, Roche, Novartis. VDH reports support for attending meetings from Roche, Novartis Pfizer. CJ reports personal honoraria from Daiichi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer. FD reports consulting fees from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Daiichi, Pierre Fabre, Seagen; and support for attending meetings from Roche and Pfizer. PC reports personal consulting fees from Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Daiichi and Seagen, honoraria from Pfizer and Novartis. The others did not report disclosures., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of the histological lobular subtype on overall survival (OS) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is still under debate, with very few data available., Patients and Methods: Using the French national multicentre Epidemiological Strategy and Medico Economics [ESME]) data platform, the primary objective was to compare the OS of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) versus invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) MBC, with adjustment on the main prognostic factors using two approaches: multivariable analysis and matching with a propensity score. Secondary objectives were to compare first-line progression-free survival (PFS1) and describe patients and tumour characteristics., Results: Of the 16,703 patients with MBC in the ESME database, 13,111 met all inclusion criteria for the present analysis. One-thousand eight-hundred and four (13.8%) patients had ILC and 11.307 (86.2%) IDC. In the multivariable analysis, patients with ILC had a worse OS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.31; 95%CI 1.20-1.42; p < 0.0001] and a worse PFS1 (HR: 1.15; 95%CI 1.07-1.22; p < 0.0001) as compared with those with IDC, independently of hormone receptor and HER2 status. Interestingly, OS was better (HR 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.98; p = 0.0302), worse (HR: 1.17; 95%CI 1.08-1.27; p = 0.0001) or similar (HR: 0.88; 95%CI 0.67-1.15; p = 0.3455) in patients with ILC with triple-negative, hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative and HER2-positive MBC, respectively, compared with patients with IDC., Conclusion: Lobular histology is an independent adverse prognostic factor among women with MBC. ILC MBC could be considered a specific entity. Dedicated prospective studies are needed to tailor the management of these patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare disease often diagnosed at a localised stage. For locally advanced recurrence or metastatic disease, DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil) demonstrated high efficacy and became one of the standard regimens. However, there is no standard of care in the second line., Patients and Methods: In the Epitopes-HPV01 and Epitopes-HPV02 prospective trials, 115 patients with advanced SCCA were treated with a DCF regimen in the first line. In these studies, second-line data were registered per protocol., Results: After a median follow-up of >40 months, at progression, 73 patients received a second-line (L2) treatment. In this L2 population, median overall survival (mOS) was 13.5 months (95%CI 9.4-19.8), and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.7 months (3.4-7.3) in L2. Fourteen patients presented an oligometastatic progression and were treated with an ablative treatment (surgery or radiotherapy); mOS was 48.3 months (NE-NE), and mPFS was 31.3 months (23.2-NE). Fifty-nine patients received a systemic treatment (chemotherapy or immunotherapy); mOS was 11 months (8.4-15.4) and mPFS was 4.9 months (3.3-7). The most frequent chemotherapy regimens were the reintroduction of DCF, paclitaxel, FOLFIRI and mitomycin plus fluoropyrimidine. No significant difference was observed between regimens (p = 0.26). Six patients received anti-PD1/L1-based immunotherapy., Conclusion: Second-line treatments are effective in patients with SCCA. Ablative treatment is feasible and is probably the best option for patients with oligometastatic progression. If this is not possible, systemic therapy by an anti-PD1/L1 immunotherapy or chemotherapy can be recommended. Reintroduction of DCF, paclitaxel, FOLFIRI or mitomycin-C plus fluoropyrimidine are possible options., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest associated with this manuscript., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hormone-resistant HER2-negative or triple-negative advanced breast cancers (ABC) are routinely treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy. LY2780301 is a dual inhibitor of p70 ribosomal protein S6 kinase and AKT. The TAKTIC study aimed at exploring the combination of paclitaxel and LY2780301 in this population., Methods: In this multicentric phase Ib/II trial, we enrolled patients with HER2-negative ABC, with (phase IB) or without (phase II) prior to cytotoxic treatment for advanced disease. Oral LY2780301 was administered once daily in combination with intravenous weekly paclitaxel. Primary endpoints were to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of the combination of LY2780301 with weekly paclitaxel (phase Ib), and to estimate a 6 months objective response rate (ORR) (phase II) in patients with HER2-negative ABC, both in the overall patient population and in cases with activation of the PI3K/AKT pathway (PI3KAKT+)., Results: A total of 51 patients were enrolled; RP2D was LY2780301 500 mg QD+ paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 . Main drug-related adverse events noted in phase Ib included neuropathy (75% of patients, grade 3-4 in 8%), asthenia (58% of patients, no grade 3-4), and ungual toxicity (50% of patients, grade 3-4 in 25%). They were similar in the phase II part, except that 14% of patients experienced pneumonia (grade 3-4 in 6%). In the phase II part, 6-month ORR in the overall population and in PI3KAKT+ subgroup were, respectively, 63.9% [48.8-76.8] and 55% [35-73.7]., Conclusion: Combining LY2780301 and weekly paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative ABC was feasible with preliminary evidence of efficacy in both the overall population and the PI3KAKT+ subgroup., Trial Registration Id: NCT01980277., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement CV received research a grant from BMS, participated in the advisory board for Pfizer and Novartis. AG received non-financial support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. RS received research grants from EISAI and AstraZeneca, participated in the advisory board for GSK, Pfizer, Roche and Novartis and received non-financial support from Pfizer, Roche, GSK, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are widely used in recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). We aimed to describe response rates to taxanes after progression on nivolumab in R/M HNSCC patients., Methods: In this multicentric retrospective comparative study, we included patients treated with taxane monotherapy from 2014 to 2020. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they received nivolumab before taxanes (post-nivolumab group) or not (control group). The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) comparison between the two groups. The secondary end-points included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and PFS ratio (PFSr=PFS associated with taxanes divided by PFS associated with the previous line of treatment), a survival marker used for comparison of different treatment lines., Results: Between July 2014 and August 2020, 185 patients were included (114 in the control group and 71 in the post-nivolumab group). ORR was significantly higher in the post-nivolumab group (39.4% versus 26.3%, p = 0.03) as was DCR (69% versus 50%, P = 0.06). The median OS (7.5 months) and PFS (3.5 months) were not significantly different in the two groups, whereas PFSr was significantly improved in the post-nivolumab group (1.63 versus 1.11, P = 0.004)., Conclusion: Response and DCRs with taxanes are improved after prior exposure to nivolumab. Thus, taxane monotherapy could be a good choice as third-line therapy after nivolumab following a platinum-based first line. These results currently apply to patients without access to or potential benefit from first-line pembrolizumab., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The difficulty in interpreting somatic alterations is correlated with the increase in sequencing panel size. To correctly guide the clinical management of patients with cancer, there needs to be accurate classification of pathogenicity followed by actionability assessment. Here, we describe a specific detailed workflow for the classification of the pathogenicity of somatic variants in cancer into five categories: benign, likely benign, unknown significance, likely pathogenic and pathogenic., Methods: Classification is obtained by combining a set of eight relevant criteria in favour of either a pathogenic or a benign effect (pathogenic stand-alone, pathogenic very strong, pathogenic strong, pathogenic moderate, pathogenic supporting, benign supporting, benign strong and benign stand-alone)., Results: Our guide is concordant with the ACMG/AMP 2015 guidelines for germline variants. Interpretation of somatic variants requires considering specific criteria, such as the disease and therapeutic context, co-occurring genomic events in the tumour when available and the use of cancer-specific variant databases. In addition, the gene role in tumorigenesis (oncogene or tumour suppressor gene) also needs to be taken into consideration., Conclusion: Our classification could contribute to homogenize best practices on somatic variant pathogenicity interpretation and improve interpretation consistency both within and between laboratories., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Multikinase inhibitor (MKI) treatments have shown efficacy in progressive radioiodine refractory thyroid cancers (RAIR-TC), but most patients experienced substantial adverse effects. This randomised multicentric study investigated intermittent versus continuous pazopanib administration., Patients and Methods: The PAZOTHYR study included RAIR-TC patients with progressive disease in the last 12 months, who may have received one prior MKI. RAIR-TC patients received pazopanib for 6 months, and patients with stable disease or tumour response were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continuous (CP) or intermittent (IP) pazopanib until progression. The primary end-point was time to treatment failure (TTF) defined as the time from randomisation to permanent discontinuation of pazopanib, due to any cause. One hundred randomised patients were needed to demonstrate an increase from 50% (CP) to 70% (IP) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.515, 80% power) in the rate of patients still under treatment 6 months (6m-SuT) post-randomisation. Secondary end-points included the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) under pazopanib and safety., Results: RAIR-TC patients (168) enrolled from June 18, 2013 to January 16, 2018, received 6-month pazopanib treatment and showed 35.6% (95% CI 28.2-43.6) best response rate and 89.4% (83.5-93.7) disease control rate. One hundred patients were randomised (IP:50; CP:50). With a median follow-up of 31.3 months, median TTF was not statistically different between arms (IP:14.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.3-17.4; CP:11.9, 95% CI 7.5-15.6) months (HR 0.79, 0.49-1.27). 6m-SuT rates were similar (IP:80% 66.0-88.7%; CP:78% 63.8-87.2%). Median PFS under pazopanib were not statistically different (IP:5.7 4.8-7.8; CP: 9.2 7.3-11.1) months (HR 1.36, 0.88-2.12). Pazopanib-related adverse events grade 3-4 occurred in 36 (IP: 19, 38%; CP: 17, 34%) randomised patients. Seven pazopanib-related deaths occurred., Conclusions: Intermittent administration of pazopanib did not demonstrate significant superiority in efficacy or tolerance compared with continuous treatment. An intermittent administration scheme cannot be recommended outside clinical trials. This study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT01813136., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The estimated rate of de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) at the time of diagnosis is between 5 to 12%. International guidelines recommend metastatic work-up (MWU) only in women with advanced breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics and prognosis of patients with dnMBC diagnosed without an initial indication for MWU., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, comparative study in dnMBC patients selected from the ESME-MBC cohort. Patients were treated in France between 2008 and 2016. We compared two populations: patients in whom dnMBC was diagnosed by staging although not indicated by guidelines (non-guideline staging [NGS]) and those in whom dnMBC was diagnosed by guideline staging (GS)., Results: During the study period, 22,463 patients with MBC were included in the ESME cohort. Among them, 6698 were dnMBC patients. In 247 of these patients (6% of dnMBC and 1% of the overall population), dnMBC was diagnosed by non-guideline staging. Women in this group were significantly younger (57 vs. 59 years, p = 0.02) and had fewer metastatic sites at diagnosis than dnMBC-GS patients. The two groups were not significantly different in terms of the other characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were better in the dnMBC-NGS group than in the dnMBC-GS group. The impact on survival was confirmed by univariate and multivariate analysis (HR 1.83 [1.31-2.57], p < 0.01)., Conclusion: This study provides the first description of a very specific population. These patients with dnMBC-NGS were younger and more likely to have oligometastatic disease with a better prognosis., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Two phase II trials (NCT00688753 and NCT00541008) reported efficacy data of sunitinib and everolimus in first-line treatment of metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (mpRCC). Although most patients receive sunitinib or a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in first- and second-line treatment, the optimal strategy remained unknown., Material and Methods: In 23 centres of the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Urogénitales group, after centralised pathological review, we analysed retrospectively progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with mpRCC treated in first-line treatment (PFS-1) with sunitinib or everolimus (primary end-point), PFS in second-line treatment (PFS-2), overall survival (OS), objective response rate, disease control rate (DCR), overall sequence and prognostic factors for OS (secondary end-points)., Results: One hundred thirty-eight patients (119 men and 19 women), median age 62.5 years, with mpRCC type 1 (n = 24) or non-type 1 (n = 114), received first-line sunitinib (n = 107) or everolimus (n = 31). With a median follow-up of 92 months, we found no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of PFS-1 (5.5 versus 6.2 months) and DCR (69% versus 83%). Ninety-eight patients received a second-line treatment, 69% with mTOR inhibitors after sunitinib and 100% with tyrosine kinase inhibitors after everolimus, with similar DCR (64% versus 58%), median PFS-2 (3.4 versus 4.8 months) and OS (16.0 versus 20.3 months). No factor was prognostic for PFS-1, whereas leukocytosis, anaemia and the time from diagnosis to first systemic therapy < 1 year were prognostic for OS. We found no prognostic difference between both pRCC subtypes. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Database Consortium risk factors were prognostic for OS., Conclusion: Sunitinib and everolimus had similar efficacy in first-line treatment of patients with mpRCC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This multi-cohort trial explored the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with advanced sarcomas of bone origin; this report details the cohort of patients with metastatic or locally advanced chondrosarcoma (CS), progressing after prior chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with CS, progressing despite prior standard therapy, were randomised (2:1) to receive regorafenib or placebo. Patients on placebo could crossover to receive regorafenib after centrally confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate (PFR) at 12 weeks. With one-sided α of 0.05, and 80% power, at least 16/24 progression-free patients at 12 weeks were needed for success (P0 = 50%, P1 = 75%)., Results: From September 2014 to February 2019, 46 patients were included in the CS cohort, and 40 patients were evaluable for efficacy: 16 on placebo and 24 on regorafenib. Thirteen patients (54.2%; 95% CI [35.8%-[) were non-progressive at 12 weeks on regorafenib versus 5 (31.3%; 95% CI [13.2%-[);) on placebo. Median PFS was 19.9 weeks on regorafenib, and 8.0 on placebo. Fourteen placebo patients crossed over to regorafenib after progression. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events on regorafenib included hypertension (12%), asthenia (8%), thrombocytopenia (8%) and diarrhoea (8%). One episode of fatal liver dysfunction occurred on regorafenib., Conclusion: Although the primary endpoint was not met statistically in this small randomised cohort, there is modest evidence to suggest that regorafenib might slow disease progression in patients with metastatic CS after the failure of prior chemotherapy., Clinical Trial Registration: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02389244)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement FD received travel grants from Pharmamar, and Leo Pharma attended advisory boards for Bayer, Lilly. CC attended advisory boards for Leo Pharma, OM attended advisory boards and chaired meetings with Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bleuprint, Eli Lilly, Roche, Servier, PBR received travel grants form Pfizer, Takeda, JYB receives research support and honoraria from Eisei, Eli Lilly, MSD, BMS, GSK, Ignyta, Novartis, Pharmamar and Roche unrelated to this work, and AI, CP, NP, OC, LC, CD, MC, LM, MR, EB, SC, FB, CS, SPN, CB, VV, AH, ESB, have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Real-world data on cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is limited. This study (CABOREAL) reports treatment patterns and outcomes for patients treated with cabozantinib through the French Early Access Program., Patients and Methods: This multicentre (n = 26), observational, retrospective study enrolled patients with mRCC who had received ≥1 dose of cabozantinib. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; subgroups were compared using the log-rank test. A multiple Cox regression model assessed predictive factors of OS after cabozantinib initiation., Results: Four hundred and ten recruited patients started treatment between September 2016 and February 2018: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥2, 39.3%; poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, 31.7%; 0-1, 2 and ≥3 previous treatment lines, 25.3%, 33.4% and 41.2%, respectively; bone metastases, 55.9%; brain metastases, 16.8%. Median (min-max) follow-up was 14.4 (0-30) months. Overall, 57.0% of patients had a dose reduction, 15.6% an alternative dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg. Median (quartile [Q]1-Q3) treatment duration was 7.6 (0.1-29.1) months, median OS was 14.4 months, and the 12-month OS rate was 56.5% (95% confidence interval: 51.5-61.2). Most patients (54.4%) received subsequent treatment. Predictive factors associated with longer OS were body mass index ≥25 kg/m 2 (p = 0.0021), prior nephrectomy (p = 0.0109), favourable or intermediate IMDC risk (p < 0.0001) and cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (p = 0.0486)., Conclusions: In the largest real-world study to date, cabozantinib was effective in unselected, heavily pretreated patients with mRCC. Initiation at 60 mg/day was associated with improved outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT03744585., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Laurence Albiges reports receiving funding from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Aude Fléchon reports receiving honoraria and travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Christine Chevreau reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD and Pfizer. Delphine Topart reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen and Pfizer. Gwenaëlle Gravis reports receiving travel expenses from Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer and Sanofi. Stéphane Oudard reports receiving honoraria from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. Lionnel Geoffrois reports receiving honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck KGaA and MSD. Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin's institution reports receiving funding from Pfizer. Antoine Thiery-Vuillemin reports receiving consulting fees and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Philippe Barthélémy reports being on the advisory boards of Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche, and receiving honoraria from Astellas, EUSA Pharma and Sanofi. Sylvain Ladoire reports receiving travel, accommodation and consulting fees from Ipsen. Brigitte Laguerre reports receiving honoraria from Sanofi. Bernard Escudier reports receiving funding from Aveo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Marine Gross-Goupil reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. Valérie Perrot and Anaïs Billard report being employees of Ipsen. Other authors declare no conflict of interest relating to the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often require inpatient palliative care (IPC). However, mounting evidence suggests age-related disparities in palliative care delivery. This study aimed to assess the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of IPC delivery, as well as the influence of age., Methods: The national ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical)-MBC cohort includes consecutive MBC patients treated in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. ICD-10 palliative care coding was used for IPC identification., Results: Our analysis included 12,375 patients, 5093 (41.2%) of whom were aged 65 or over. The median follow-up was 41.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.5-42.5). The CIF of IPC was 10.3% (95% CI, 10.2-10.4) and 24.8% (95% CI, 24.7-24.8) at 2 and 8 years, respectively. At 2 years, among triple-negative patients, young patients (<65 yo) had a higher CIF of IPC than older patients after adjusting for cancer characteristics, centre and period (65+/<65: β = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). Among other tumour sub-types, older patients received short-term IPC more frequently than young patients (65+/<65: β = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). At 8 years, outside large centres, IPC was delivered less frequently to older patients adjusted to cancer characteristics and period (65+/<65: β = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01)., Conclusion: We found a relatively low CIF of IPC and that age influenced IPC delivery. Young triple-negative and older non-triple-negative patients needed more short-term IPCs. Older patients diagnosed outside large centres received less long-term IPC. These findings highlight the need for a wider implementation of IPC facilities and for more age-specific interventions., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Europe, induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by radiotherapy is preferred to conventional chemoradiotherapy to avoid total laryngectomy in patients with laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancer. In comparison with conventional radiotherapy, bioradiotherapy with cetuximab significantly improves locoregional control rates (LCRs) and overall survival (OS) without any increase in unmanageable toxicity., Methods: Patients included had untreated non-metastatic stage III-IV laryngeal/hypopharyngeal invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Good responders after three cycles of docetaxel-cisplatin-5-fluorouracil (TPF)-ICT (docetaxel and cisplatin, 75 mg/m 2 each on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil, 750 mg/m 2 /day on days 1-5) every 3 weeks were randomised to receive radiotherapy (70 Gy) with concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 /day on days 1, 22 and 43 of radiotherapy) or cetuximab (400 mg/m 2 of loading dose, 250 mg/m 2 /week during radiotherapy). The primary end-point was larynx preservation. The secondary end-points were laryngo-oesophageal dysfunction-free survival (LEDFS), LCR and OS., Results: A total of 153 patients were enrolled. Among 126 TPF-ICT responders, 116 were randomised to receive either cisplatin (n = 60) or cetuximab (n = 56). The median follow-up was 77.5 months. Five-year OS rates were 66.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.79) versus 66.9% (95% CI: 0.54-0.79) (p = 0.9), respectively. Five-year LCRs were 79.8% (95% CI: 69.5-90.0) versus 67.8% (95% CI: 55.1-80.5%) (p = 0.18). Five-year LEDFS was 62.2% (95% CI: 49.7-74.8%) versus 56.2% (95% CI: 43.0-69.4) (p = 0.38). Late grade III/IV salivary gland and laryngeal toxicity occurred in 10.3% versus 9.8% and 6.8% versus 11.8% of patients receiving cisplatin-radiotherapy versus cetuximab, respectively., Conclusions: No significant difference in LEDFS was observed between the two arms. TPF-ICT followed by conventional chemoradiotherapy or cetuximab was feasible, and long-term toxicity was not statistically different between the two arms. LEDFS appears as a relevant end-point., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Real-world data inform the outcome comparisons and help the development of new therapeutic strategies. To this end, we aimed to describe the full characteristics and outcomes in the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) cohort, a large national contemporary observational database of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Methods: Women aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed MBC and who initiated MBC treatment between January 2008 and December 2016 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (N = 22,109) were included. We assessed the full patients' characteristics, first-line treatments, overall survival (OS) and first-line progression-free survival, as well as updated prognostic factors in the whole cohort and among the 3 major subtypes: hormone receptor positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-, n = 13,656), HER2-positive (HER2+, n = 4017) and triple-negative (n = 2963) tumours., Results: The median OS of the whole cohort was 39.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.7-40.3). Five-year OS was 33.8%. OS differed significantly between the 3 subtypes (p < 0.0001) with a median OS of 43.3 (95% CI, 42.5-44.5) in HR+/HER2-; 50.1 (95% CI, 47.6-53.1) in HER2+; and 14.8 months (95% CI, 14.1-15.5) in triple-negative subgroups, respectively. Beyond performance status, the following variables had a constant significant negative prognostic impact on OS in the whole cohort and among subtypes: older age at diagnosis of metastases (except for the triple-negative subtype), metastasis-free interval between 6 and 24 months, presence of visceral metastases and number of metastatic sites ≥ 3., Conclusions: The ESME program represents a unique large-scale real-life cohort on MBC. This study highlights important situations of high medical need within MBC patients. DATABASE REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT032753., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.D. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche/Genentech; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Puma; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis; personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen. T.B. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, Pfizer and AstraZeneca; personal fees from Seattle Genetics and personal fees and non-financial support from Roche. E.B. reports personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Mylan, BMS, Clinigen, TLC Pharma Chem, G1 Therapeutics and Samsung and non-financial support from Roche, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. W.J. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Eisai, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer and Lilly; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca; personal fees from MSD; non-financial support from Chugai. M.-A.M.-R. reports other from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre and MSD, outside the submitted work. F.D. reports boards from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. C.L-P. reports non-financial support from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Fabre. C.C. reports grants from Pfizer, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Daiichi. A.G. reports non-financial support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. M.R. reports other from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo and Lilly. D.P. reports personal fees from Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca; and grants from MSD, outside the submitted work. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) management remains an unmet medical need. We assessed the activity and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic STS who were previously treated with both chemotherapy and pazopanib., Patients and Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter comparative randomized phase II trial included patients with histologically proven advanced and inoperable STS. Patients receiving placebo were offered optional cross-over for centrally confirmed disease progression. Primary end-point was centrally reviewed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-based progression-free survival (PFS), analysed on the intent-to-treat data set. In total, 24 events were required for 90% power, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.33 (median PFS, 3.6 versus 1.2 months), and 1-sided α = 0.1 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01900743)., Results: From December 2015 to October 2017, 37 patients were randomized; 18 to regorafenib and 19 to placebo. Thirteen patients assigned to placebo switched to regorafenib after progression. Median follow-up was 27.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.4-not reached). We observed a significant PFS benefit of regorafenib compared with placebo (adjusted HR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15-0.74; p = 0.0007 median PFS = 2.1 versus 1.1 months, respectively), and a large and nearly significant overall survival (OS) benefit despite the cross-over (adjusted HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.23-1.06; p = 0.007; median OS = 17.8 versus 8.2 months). Before cross-over, the most common grade III or higher adverse events were lymphopenia (5 versus 1, respectively), diarrhoea (4 versus 0), dyspnoea (3 versus 1), skin toxicity (3 versus 0), arterial hypertension (2 versus 0), and increased transaminases (2 versus 0)., Conclusion: The present study demonstrated a meaningful clinical anti-tumour activity with regorafenib in heavily pre-treated patients with non-adipocytic STS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement N.P. and J.Y.B. received research funding from Bayer HealthCare SA. A.L.C. declares personal fees from Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Lilly and Ariad, outside the submitted work. O.M. reports personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca and BMS, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Options in second-line therapy after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic/advanced leiomyosarcoma include gemcitabine (G), trabectedin and pazopanib (P) monotherapy. Currently, no combination therapy is better than monotherapy. LMS03 is an open-label multicentre single-group phase II study designed to assess the efficacy and tolerance of G + P in the second-line setting., Patients and Methods: Patients (pts), ECOG ≤2, with metastatic leiomyosarcomas (LMS) after first-line doxorubicin chemotherapy failure were eligible. Pts were treated with G 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 of each 21 days (maximum eight cycles), in combination with oral daily P (800 mg), until disease progression/toxicity. 9-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was the primary endpoint. Inacceptable and promising 9-month PFS rates were defined, in the intent-to-treat population, as 32% and 44%., Results: 106 pts were included with a mean age of 59.8 years and an ECOG 0 in 63.5%; the primary tumour site was uterus in 61%. Pts were treated with P + G for a median of 3.8 mo, and P for a median of 4.2 mo. The 9-month PFS rate was 32.1% (95% CI 23.1-41.1). After a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.6-8.2), and the overall survival was 22.4 months (95% CI 16.9-26.5). The best response was 23.8%. The most frequent reported grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological., Conclusions: LMS03 failed to show that second-line therapy, with gemcitabine combined with pazopanib, followed by pazopanib alone, was beneficial for advanced LMS patients. Eudract N°2011-001308-36 and NCT01442662., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aims of the present study were to describe treatment patterns and survival outcomes in patients with central nervous system metastases (CNSM) selected among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients included in a retrospective study from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) MBC cohort., Methods: Neurological progression-free survival (NPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significant contributors to NPFS were determined using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model., Results: After a median follow-up of 42.8 months, of 16 701 patients included in the ESME MBC database, CNSM were diagnosed in 24.6% of patients. The most frequent treatments after diagnosis of CNSM were whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) (45.2%) and systemic treatment (59.3%). Median OS and NPFS were 7.9 months (95% CI: 7.2-8.4) and 5.5 months (95% CI: 5.2-5.8), respectively. In multivariate analysis, age >70 years (vs <50 years; HR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.24-1.57), triple-negative tumours (vs HER2-/HR+; HR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.71-2.06), HER2+/HR-tumours (vs HER2-/HR+; HR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.02-1.27), ≥3 metastatic sites (vs < 3; HR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.21-1.43) and ≥3 previous treatment lines (vs < 3; HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 1.56-1.96) were detrimental for NPFS. A time interval between selection and CNSM diagnosis superior to 18 months (vs <9 months; HR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78-0.98) was associated with longer NPFS., Conclusions: This study describes current treatment patterns of MBC patients in a "real life" setting. Despite advances in stereotactic radiation therapy, most of the patients still received WBRT. More research is warranted to identify patient subsets for tailored treatment strategies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We conducted a double-randomised phase III trial to evaluate a concomitant taxane-anthracycline regimen in node-positive breast cancer and the efficacy of trastuzumab in the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive subpopulation., Methods: A total of 3010 patients with node-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive 6 cycles of 500 mg/m 2 of fluorouracil, 100 mg/m 2 of epirubicin and 500 mg/m 2 of cyclophosphamide (FEC) or 75 mg/m 2 of epirubicin and 75 mg/m 2 of docetaxel (ED). Patients with HER2-positive tumours were secondary randomly assigned to either trastuzumab or observation. The primary end-point was disease-free survival (DFS) in the two chemotherapy arms., Results: After a 115-month median follow-up, DFS was not significantly better in the ED arm (DFS: 70%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 67-72) than in the FEC arm (DFS: 68%, 95% CI: 65-70; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77-1.01; p = 0.064). The OS was not different between FEC (OS: 80%, 95% CI: 78-83) and ED (OS: 81%, 95% CI: 79-83); HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16; p = 0.729). ED appeared more toxic. In the 528 HER2-positive subset, there was trend for a higher DFS, in the intention-to-treat population, in the trastuzumab arm (DFS: 68%, 95% CI: 61-74) than in the observation arm (DFS: 60%, 95% CI: 54-66; HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.57-1.03; p = 0.079). In the per-protocol population, DFS was significantly higher in the trastuzumab arm (DFS: 70%, 95% CI: 63-76) than in the observation arm (DFS: 59%, 95% CI: 53-65; HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51-0.94; p = 0.0156). The OS was not different between these 2 arms., Conclusion: This study did not show superiority of the concomitant anthracycline-taxane arm which was more toxic in high-risk node-positive breast cancer patients. Long-term results of the HER2-positive subpopulation are in line with those of the other adjuvant trastuzumab trials but quantitatively less pronounced mostly because of lack of power., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: UNICANCER-PACS08 compared adjuvant FEC (5-FU; epirubicin; cyclophosphamide) then docetaxel to FEC then ixabepilone in poor prognosis early breast cancer (BC). We evaluated whether replacing docetaxel with ixabepilone would increase 5-year disease-free survival (DFS)., Patients and Methods: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or oestrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)-/HER2- BC patients were randomised to receive standard FEC (3 cycles) followed by 3 cycles of either docetaxel (100 mg/m 2 ) or ixabepilone (40 mg/m 2 ). Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery; ER+ patients received endocrine therapy., Results: Seven hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled between October 2007 and September 2010. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Median follow-up was 66.7 months. Median DFS was not reached; 5-year DFS rate was 76% with docetaxel and 79% with ixabepilone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-1.10; p = 0.175). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; 5-year OS rate was 86% versus 84% (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.66-1.42; p = 0.897). TNBC patients treated with ixabepilone had a 23% lower risk of relapse compared to docetaxel (HR for DFS = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.53-1.11; p = 0.168). DFS was longer with ixabepilone than docetaxel in patients with grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.29-1.05; p = 0.063). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse events (AEs): 75% reported grade III-IV AEs and two (<1%) had grade V AEs (both with neutropenia and infection receiving ixabepilone)., Conclusion: After adjuvant FEC, ixabepilone was comparable to docetaxel for treating poor prognosis early BC patients. The benefit of ixabepilone in subgroups (patients with TNBC and grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration) requires further evaluation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is usually considered radioresistant, but stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) may increase local disease control. This study aimed to assess the benefit of SRT in the management of metastatic RCC patients., Methods: Data of all RCC patients who received SRT between 2008 and 2015 with curative intent were retrospectively collected in six French referral centres. Local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), time to systemic therapy (TTS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed., Results: One hundred and eighty-eight patients treated with SRT for 252 RCC metastases (brain [n = 120]; spine [n = 75]; and others [n = 57]) were recensed. SRT was performed for oligoprogressive disease (101 patients), oligometastatic disease (80 patients) or residual tumour after a partial response to systemic treatment (7 patients). The median biologically effective dose was 78 Gy. For the whole population, local control rates at 6, 12 and 24 months were 87.5%, 82.9% and 77.6%, respectively; median PFS, LRFS, TTS and OS were 8.5, 23.2, 13.2 and 29.2 months, respectively. Among patients treated for oligoprogressive/oligometastatic disease, the median PFS, TTS, and OS were 8.6/7.6, 10.5/14.2 and 23.2/33.9 months, respectively. Among the 7 patients treated with SRT after partial response to systemic treatment, no relapse occurred for 3 of them after a median follow-up of 22 months. Acute and late severe toxicities were noted in 5 (2.6%) patients., Conclusions: SRT is effective and safe for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive RCC patients and may delay introduction or change of systemic therapy., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Real-life analysis of overall survival (OS) trends among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients may help define medical needs and evaluate the impact of public health investments. The present study aimed to evaluate the independent impact of the year of MBC diagnosis on OS in the Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical (ESME)-MBC cohort., Methods: ESME-MBC (NCT03275311) is a French, national, multicentre, observational cohort including 16,702 consecutive newly diagnosed MBC patients (01 January 2008-31 December 2014). Of 16,680 eligible patients, 15,085 had full immunohistochemistry data, allowing classification as hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-, N = 9907), HER2-positive (HER2+, N = 2861) or triple-negative (HR-/HER2-, N = 2317) subcohorts. Multivariate analyses of OS were conducted among the full ESME cohort and subcohorts., Results: Median OS of the whole cohort was 37.22 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3-38.04). Year of diagnosis was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00], P = .01) together with age, subtype, disease-free interval, visceral metastases and number of organs involved. Median OS of HR+/HER2-, HER2+ and HR-/HER2- subcohorts was, respectively, 42.12 (95% CI, 40.90-43.10), 44.91 (95% CI, 42.51-47.90) and 14.52 (95% CI, 13.70-15.24) months. Year of diagnosis was a strong independent predictor of OS in HER2+ subcohort (hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI, 0.88-0.94], P < .001), but not in HR+/HER2- nor HR-/HER2- subcohorts (hazard ratio 1.00 [95% CI, 0.98-1.01], P = .80 and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.02], P = .90, respectively)., Conclusions: The OS of MBC patients has slightly improved over the past decade. However, this effect is confined to HER2+ cases, highlighting the need of new strategies in the other subtypes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy (BCP) is rare, but the prevalence is expected to rise. Long-term follow-up data regarding this clinically challenging condition are scarce. The main objective of this multicentre case-control French study was to compare the survival between pregnant patients and matched controls., Methods: Patients from 27 centres diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 with histologically proven invasive breast cancer occurring during pregnancy were retrospectively included. Controls were matched to BCP patients on age, clinical T stage, hormone receptor, HER2, administration of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and pathological node involvement in the absence of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Five-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: One hundred and eleven BCP patients and 253 controls were included. Median age was 33 and 35 years, respectively. Both populations were managed similarly, except for less frequent sentinel node dissection (p = 0.026) and taxane administration (p = 0.03) among BCP patients. Median follow-up was 7.5 years. Survival rates were similar between both BCP and control patients: 5-year OS rates were 83.1% (95% CI: 74.5-89.0) vs 85.5% (95% CI: 80.4-89.4), respectively, p = 0.31; 5-year DFS rates 60.0% (95% CI: 50.1-68.6) vs 68.5% (95% CI: 62.3-73.9), respectively, p = 0.12 and 5-year MFS rates 71.0% (95% CI: 61.3-78.6) and 74.5% (95% CI: 68.6-79.5), respectively, p = 0.21., Conclusion: Our study showed that the survival outcomes of patients diagnosed with BCP were not significantly different as compared to those of matched non-pregnant controls. A proper management of women diagnosed with BCP is crucial., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early chemotherapy has recently become a new standard of care for patients with metastatic castrate-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC). The survival benefit is evident in patients with high-volume disease, but less clear in those with low-volume disease. Here, we assessed the trade-offs between toxicity and survival using a Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease and Toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) analysis., Patients and Methods: This analysis was performed from the data of the Genito-Urinary Oncology Group (GETUG)-AFU 15 phase III trial evaluating the benefits of docetaxel (D) combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone in 385 mCNPC patients. Overall survival was partitioned into three periods, namely toxic phase of treatment (TOX), time before progression without toxicity (TWIST), and progression (PROG). These health states were weighted according to patients' utility to determine quality-adjusted survival times. In threshold analyses, utility for TOX and PROG were varied from 0 to 1., Results: A better quality-adjusted survival was found in the ADT + D arm when the utility for PROG and TOX states were ≤0.2 and ≥ 0.8, respectively. When the utility for PROG was 0.4 or more, ADT + D and ADT alone yielded similar quality-adjusted survival. When patients were stratified into high-volume versus low-volume disease, we found a significant Q-TWiST benefit in favour of the ADT + D arm only for high-volume patients when the utility for PROG was less than 0.35, while we found no benefit in low-volume disease patients, whatever the coefficients tested., Conclusion: Early docetaxel may provide significant quality-adjusted survival benefits for patients with mCNPC, especially those with high-volume disease, depending on the values assigned to the times spent in the toxicity phase and after PROG. The Q-TWiST methodology is a useful tool for decision-making regarding trade-offs between survival, PROG and toxicity., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A recent prospective randomised trial did not reveal significant differences in median progression-free survival between two chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for inoperable non-metastatic oesophageal cancer patients. This secondary analysis aimed to describe the impact of CRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), physical functioning, dysphagia, fatigue and pain and to evaluate whether baseline HRQOL domains can predict overall survival., Patients and Methods: A total of 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive with 50 Gy of radiotherapy in 25 fractions six cycles of FOLFOX or four cycles of fluorouracil and cisplatin on day 1. HRQOL was prospectively assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 with the oesophageal cancer module (QLQ-OES18)., Results: Both groups showed high baseline compliance. Subsequently, compliance reduced to 41% at the 6-month follow-up. Baseline HRQOL scores showed no statistical differences between treatment arms. During treatment, both groups exhibited lower physical and social functioning and increased fatigue and dyspnoea, although dysphagia moderately improved in the fluorouracil-cisplatin arm only (p = 0.047). During follow-up, HRQOL scores revealed no significant differences between chemotherapy regimens. Linear mixed model exhibited a treatment-by-time interaction effect for dysphagia (p = 0.017) with a greater decrease in dysphagia in the fluorouracil-cisplatin group. Time until definitive deterioration analysis showed no significant differences in global HRQOL, functional or main symptom domains. However, time until definitive deterioration was significantly longer for the fluorouracil and cisplatin arm compared with FOLFOX for appetite loss (p = 0.002), QLQ-OES-18 pain (p = 0.008), trouble swallowing saliva (p = 0.011) and trouble talking (p = 0.020)., Conclusion: Analyses of HRQOL scores revealed no statistically significant differences between patients with inoperable non-metastatic oesophageal cancer treated by FOLFOX versus those treated with a fluorouracil-cisplatin regimen as part of definitive CRT., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) progression is common in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors have shown activity against CNS metastases, but accurate assessment of response and progression is vital. Data from two phase II studies in crizotinib-refractory ALK+ NSCLC were pooled to examine the CNS efficacy of alectinib, a CNS-active ALK inhibitor, using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) and Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria., Methods: Both studies enrolled patients aged ≥18 years who had previously received crizotinib. NP28761 was conducted in North America and NP28673 was a global study. All patients received 600 mg oral alectinib twice daily and had baseline CNS imaging. CNS response for those with baseline CNS metastases was determined by an independent review committee., Results: Baseline measurable CNS disease was identified in 50 patients by RECIST and 43 by RANO-HGG. CNS objective response rate was 64.0% by RECIST (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.2-77.1; 11 CNS complete responses [CCRs]) and 53.5% by RANO-HGG (95% CI: 37.7-68.8; eight CCRs). CNS responses were durable, with consistent estimates of median duration of 10.8 months with RECIST and 11.1 months with RANO-HGG. Of the 39 patients with measurable CNS disease by both RECIST and RANO-HGG, only three (8%) had CNS progression according to one criteria but not the other (92% concordance rate)., Conclusion: Alectinib demonstrated promising efficacy in the CNS for ALK+ NSCLC patients pretreated with crizotinib, regardless of the assessment criteria used., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: For early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), optimal chemotherapy regimen and the number of cycles to be delivered remain to settle down. The H9-U trial compared three modalities of chemotherapy followed by involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) in patients with stage I-II HL and risk factors (NCT00005584)., Patients and Methods: Patients aged 15-70 years with untreated supradiaphragmatic HL with at least one risk factor (age ≥ 50, involvement of 4-5 nodal areas, mediastinum/thoracic ratio ≥ 0.35, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) ≥ 50 without B-symptoms or ESR ≥ 30 and B-symptoms) were eligible for the randomised, open label, multicentre, non-inferiority H9-U trial. The limit of non-inferiority was set at 10% for the difference between 5-year event-free survival (EFS) estimates. From October 1998 to September 2002, 808 patients were randomised to receive either the control arm 6-ABVD-IFRT (n = 276), or one of the two experimental arms: 4-ABVD-IFRT (n = 277) or 4-BEACOPP baseline -IFRT (n = 255)., Results: Results in the 4-ABVD-IFRT (5-year EFS, 85.9%) and the 4-BEACOPP baseline -IFRT (5-year EFS, 88.8%) were not inferior to 6-ABVD-IFRT (5-year EFS, 89.9%): difference of 4.0% (90%CI, -0.7%-8.8%) and of 1.1% (90%CI,-3.5%-5.6%) respectively. The 5-year overall survival estimates were 94%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. Patients treated with combined modality treatment chemotherapeutic regimen comprising doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin, vincristine (Oncovin), cyclophosphamide, procarbazine, etoposide and prednisone (BEACOPP) baseline more often developed serious adverse events requiring supportive measures and hospitalisation compared with patients receiving the chemotherapeutic regimen comprising doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD)., Conclusions: The trial demonstrates that 4-ABVD followed by IFRT yields high disease control in patients with early-stage HL and risk factors responding to chemotherapy. Although non-inferior in terms of efficacy, four cycles of BEACOPP baseline were more toxic than four or six cycles of ABVD., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Women of reproductive age with breast cancer generally receive gonadotoxic chemotherapy. Fertility issues are of great concern for them. However, little is known on ovarian damage during chemotherapy and its evolution during long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed description of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) evolution during chemotherapy and 24-month follow-up., Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in 250 patients, aged 18-39 years, diagnosed with breast cancer and treated with adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Each patient underwent blood AMH measurement at each chemotherapy cycle, and at 6, 12 and 24 months after chemotherapy. Menses occurrence was also recorded., Results: Mean basal AMH level was 4.19 ± 4.84 ng/mL, and was negatively correlated with age. Serum AMH level rapidly decreased in all patients after each chemotherapy cycle to undetectable levels in most of them, and slowly increased in 45% of the patients during the 24-month follow-up. AMH decrease was significantly associated with age and basal AMH level, but not with cyclophosphamide dose and tamoxifen use. The prevalence of chemotherapy-related amenorrhoea was 92.4% at the end of chemotherapy; women with amenorrhoea being significantly older and having lower basal AMH than women who resumed menses., Conclusions: Our study confirms rapid and deep ovarian reserve alteration in young women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer, and shows moderate AMH recovery in some patients. Although AMH cannot alone predict fertility potential, these new data emphasise the need for post-treatment ovarian insufficiency follow-up, strongly support the use of fertility preservation strategies and may provide new tools for improved counselling., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer remained to be investigated rigorously for the standard regimens in widespread use in North America (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, AC) and Europe (5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, FEC). Whether six cycles of FEC 100 present an advantage, or not, compared with only four cycles was tested directly in a phase III prospective multicentre trial., Patients and Methods: Between 2002 and 2006, 1515 women between 18 and 65°years of age, with node negative N(-) high-risk early-stage breast cancer, were included in the study following breast surgery and axillary lymph node dissection or procedure by sentinel node technique. Inclusion in the study required tumour size T ≥ 1 cm and at least one of the high-risk factors: T > 2 cm, negative oestrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER- and PR-), Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grade II or III and age ≤ 35°years. Patients were randomly assigned to either six FEC 100 (Arm A) or four FEC 100 (Arm B). The trial was powered to detect an absolute difference ≥6% in disease-free survival (DFS) at 5°years., Results: At 6.1°years median follow-up, with 91 (12%) events recorded in Arm A versus 106 (14%) in Arm B, no statistically significant risk increase was associated with four versus six FEC 100: DFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.18; CI 95% [0.89-1.56], P = .24) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.39; CI 95% [0.91-2.13], P = .12)., Conclusion: Differences in chemotherapy duration did not induce notably different outcomes in our cohort of high-risk patients., Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT00055679, Agence National de Sécurité du Médicament (ANSM) - France., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To investigate whether adding bevacizumab to neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) helps achieve optimal debulking, measured by complete resection rate (CRR) at interval debulking surgery (IDS), in patients with initially unresectable International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIIC/IV ovarian, tubal or peritoneal adenocarcinoma., Methods: Multicentre, open-label, non-comparative phase II study. Ninety-five patients randomised (2:1) to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant CP ±3 concomitant cycles of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (BCP) followed by IDS. Primary objective is to evaluate the CRR at IDS in the BCP group (reference CRR rate defined as 45% CRR). A stopping rule based on bevacizumab-related adverse events (AEs) of special interest was implemented., Results: In the BCP group (N = 58), IDS was performed in 40 (69%) patients, of whom 85% had a complete resection. The CRR of this group was therefore 58.6% (34 patients), statistically over pre-defined 45%. The CRR in the CP group was 51.4%: 22 (60%) patients underwent IDS (85% had a complete resection). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 62% of the BCP-treated patients and 63% of the CP-treated patients: mainly blood and lymphatic, gastrointestinal and vascular disorders, without more toxicity with BCP. Postoperative complications (mainly wound, infectious and gastrointestinal complications) occurred in 28% and 36% of the patients, respectively. The pre-specified safety stopping rule was not reached., Conclusion: The primary objective was met as the CRR with BCP was significantly higher than the reference rate. Bevacizumab may be safely added to a preoperative program in patients deemed non-optimally resectable, whatever the final surgical decision. Bevacizumab's role in this setting should be further investigated., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The long-term results of the EORTC 24954 trial comparing sequential versus alternating chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) for patients with locally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer are reported. From 1996 to 2004, 450 patients were randomly assigned (1-1) to a sequential arm (SA = induction cisplatin-5fluorouracil followed by a 70Gy-RT for the responders or a total laryngectomy and post-operative RT for the non-responders) and an alternating arm (AA = cisplatin-5fluorouracil alternated with three 2-week courses of 20 Gy-RT for a total dose of 60 Gy). Median follow-up was 10.2 years. Ten-year survival with functional larynx (primary end-point) and overall survival were similar in both arms (18.7% and 33.6% in SA versus 18.3% and 31.6% in AA). Late toxicity was also similar; however, a trend for higher larynx preservation and better laryngeal function was observed in AA., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The French Sarcoma Group performed this retrospective analysis of the 'RetrospectYon' database with data of patients with recurrent advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with trabectedin 1.5 mg/m(2) as a 24-h infusion every three weeks., Methods: Patients who achieved non-progressive disease after six initial cycles could receive long-term trabectedin treatment until disease progression., Results: Overall, 885 patients from 25 French centres were included. Patients received a median of four trabectedin cycles (range: 1-28). The objective response rate was 17% (six complete/127 partial responses) and 50% (n = 403) of patients had stable disease for a disease control rate of 67%. After a median follow-up of 22.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 4.4 and 12.2 months, respectively. After six cycles, 227/304 patients with non-progressive disease received trabectedin until disease progression and obtained a significantly superior median PFS (11.7 versus 7.6 months, P<0.003) and OS (24.9 versus 16.9 months, P < 0.001) compared with those who stopped trabectedin treatment. Deaths and unscheduled hospitalisation attributed to drug-related events occurred in 0.5% and 9.4% of patients, respectively., Conclusion: The results of this real-life study demonstrate that treatment with trabectedin of patients with STS yielded comparable or improved efficacy outcomes versus those observed in clinical trials. A long-term treatment with trabectedin given until disease progression is associated with significantly improved PFS and OS., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cognitive deficits (CD) are reported among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, but may also be observed before treatment. Though elderly patients are expected to be more prone to present age-related CD, poor information is available regarding the impact of cancer and chemotherapy on this population. This study assessed baseline cognitive functions (before adjuvant treatment) in elderly early stage breast cancer (EBC) patients., Methods: Women >65years-old with newly diagnosed EBC were included in this prospective study. Episodic memory, working memory, executive functions and information processing speed were assessed by neuropsychological tests. Questionnaires were used to assess subjective CD, anxiety, depression, fatigue, quality of life and geriatric profile. Objective CD were defined using International Cognition and Cancer Task Force criteria. A group of elderly women without cancer coupled with published data related to healthy women were used for comparison (respectively to subjective and objective CD)., Results: Among the 123 elderly EBC patients (70±4years) included, 41% presented objective CD, which is greater than expected in healthy population norms (binomial test P<.0001). Verbal episodic memory was mainly impaired (21% of patients). No correlation was observed between objective CD and cancer stage or geriatric assessment. Subjective CD only correlated with verbal episodic memory (P=.01)., Conclusions: This is the first large series assessing baseline cognitive functions in elderly EBC patients. More than 40% presented objective CD before any adjuvant therapy, which is higher than what is reported among younger patients. Our results reinforce the hypothesis that age is a risk factor for CD in EBC patients., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Toxicity, which is a key parameter in the evaluation of cancer treatments, can be underestimated by clinicians. We investigated differences between patients and physicians in reporting adverse events of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in a multicentre phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer., Methods: The 385 patients included were invited to complete a 26-symptom questionnaire 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment, among which eighteen symptoms were also assessed by physicians, reported in medical records and graded using the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute. Positive and negative agreements as well as Kappa concordance coefficients were computed., Findings: Data were available for 220 and 165 patients at 3 and 6 months respectively. Physicians systematically under-reported patients' symptoms. Positive agreement rates (at respectively 3 and 6 months) for the five most commonly reported symptoms were: 61.0% and 64.3% hot flushes, 50.0% and 43.6% fatigue, 29.4% and 31.1% sexual dysfunction, 24.4% and 14.4% weigh gain/loss, 16.7% and 19.3% for joint/muscle pain. For symptoms most frequently reported as disturbing or very disturbing by patients, the clinicians' failure to report them ranged from 50.8% (hot flushes) to 89.5% (joint/muscle pain) at 3 months, and from 48.2% (hot flushes) to 88.4% (joint/muscle pain) at 6 months., Interpretation: Physicians often failed to report treatment-related symptoms, even the most common and disturbing ones. Patients' self-evaluation of toxicity should be used in clinical trials to improve the process of drug assessment in oncology., Funding: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, Astra-Zeneca, and Amgen., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To examine the association between baseline body mass index (BMI), and disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in a large French early-stage breast cancer population included in the UNICANCER Programme d'Action Concerté Sein-01 (PACS01) and PACS04 phase III randomised trials., Methods: After a median follow-up of 5.9years, this report analyses 4996 patients with node-positive breast cancer, and randomly assigned to adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy combined or not with taxanes. Univariate analyses were used to study the effects of well known prognostic factors and BMI on DFS and OS. BMI was obtained at baseline, before chemotherapy initiation, and obesity was defined as a BMI⩾30kg/m(2). Cox proportional hazards regression models were secondly used to assess the influence of BMI after adjusting for other factors. Exhaustive analysis of the dose intensity delivered was also studied for comparison between obese and non-obese patients., Results: Obese patients initially present with more advanced disease at diagnosis compared to non-obese patients. By univariate analysis, obesity was moderately associated with poorer DFS (hazard ratio (HR)=1.18 [1.01-1.39] P=0.04), but mostly with poorer OS (HR=1.38 [1.13-1.69] P=0.002). Delivered dose intensity of anthracyclines and taxanes was not significantly different between obese and non-obese patients. After adjustment for disease characteristics, BMI had no influence either on DFS or OS., Conclusion: This report suggests that in a French population, obesity has no impact on breast cancer prognosis when modern adjuvant chemotherapy, at the appropriate dose intensity, is delivered., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)