Search

PURPOSE Young women with germline BRCA mutations have unique reproductive challenges. Pregnancy after breast cancer does not increase the risk of recurrence; however, very limited data are available in patients with BRCA mutations. This study investigated the impact of pregnancy on breast cancer outcomes in patients with germline BRCA mutations. PATIENTS AND METHODS This is an international, multicenter, hospital-based, retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2012 with invasive early breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years and harbored deleterious germline BRCA mutations. Primary end points were pregnancy rate, and disease-free survival (DFS) between patients with and without a pregnancy after breast cancer. Pregnancy outcomes and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. Survival analyses were adjusted for guarantee-time bias controlling for known prognostic factors. RESULTS Of 1,252 patients with germline BRCA mutations ( BRCA1, 811 patients; BRCA2, 430 patients; BRCA1/2, 11 patients) included, 195 had at least 1 pregnancy after breast cancer (pregnancy rate at 10 years, 19%; 95% CI, 17% to 22%). Induced abortions and miscarriages occurred in 16 (8.2%) and 20 (10.3%) patients, respectively. Among the 150 patients who gave birth (76.9%; 170 babies), pregnancy complications and congenital anomalies occurred in 13 (11.6%) and 2 (1.8%) cases, respectively. Median follow-up from breast cancer diagnosis was 8.3 years. No differences in DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.23; P = .41) or OS (adjusted HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.56; P = .66) were observed between the pregnancy and nonpregnancy cohorts. CONCLUSION Pregnancy after breast cancer in patients with germline BRCA mutations is safe without apparent worsening of maternal prognosis and is associated with favorable fetal outcomes. These results provide reassurance to patients with BRCA-mutated breast cancer interested in future fertility.

Mucosal melanoma accounts for 1% of all melanomas. It is more aggressive than cutaneous melanoma, and local excision provides the best disease-free survival. The vast majority of patients eventually develop metastases, with a metastatic pattern independent of the primary tumor site. While studies show that BRAF and KIT inhibitors have a role in the management of these patients, the actual treatment focus is on immunotherapy. Herein is described the case of a 79-year-old woman with metastatic mucosal melanoma and bone marrow infiltration causing disseminated intravascular coagulation, who was treated with an immunotherapy combination (anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies), achieving complete disease remission. This is the third case of melanoma with disseminated intravascular coagulation at presentation and the second case treated with immunotherapy in the literature, but the only one achieving disease remission.

Uncertainty exists regarding comparative effectiveness of cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a retrospective head-to-head multi-cohort study comparing clinical outcomes from both antibodies METHODS: Cohorts were defined by treatment line and subgroups by (K)RAS status and tumour sidedness. Among other outcomes, we estimated and compared response rates, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Between January 2010 and April 2018, 311 patients were included. Except for (K)RAS mutation status, baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. In the full analysis of first and second-line cohorts, PFS (first-line: HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.13; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.83; P = 0.51) and OS (first-line: HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; P = 0.58) were similar between bevacizumab and cetuximab arms. In subgroup analyses of first-line therapy, we found a survival difference favouring bevacizumab in right-sided tumours (PFS: HR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; P = 0.025; OS: HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12; P = 0.11), but not in left-sided (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.46; P = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.36; P = 0.74), or (K)RAS wild-type tumours (PFS: HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40; P = 0.67; OS: HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25; P = 0.31). Response rates were similar across treatment groups, except for the subgroup of patients bearing right-sided primaries, where bevacizumab performed substantially better.This study provides evidence suggesting bevacizumab and cetuximab lead to similar effectiveness outcomes in mCRC, except for right-sided tumours, where cetuximab seemed to show considerably poorer outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these results.

Uncertainty exists regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab. We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing PROs and HRQoL from both therapies. We assessed PROs and HRQoL from patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires at three sequential time points, including baseline. Global Health Status (GHS), functional and symptom scales, and Overall Treatment Utility (derived from clinical and patient-reported outcomes) were compared for the two treatment strategies. Between January 2017 and April 2018, 44 patients were allocated to cetuximab (n = 19) or bevacizumab (n = 25). Except for RAS mutation status, patient baseline characteristics were generally well balanced across treatment groups. A higher proportion of patients experienced a deterioration in GHS (≥ 10%) in cetuximab arm − 53.8% (95% CI 25.1–80.8%) at 6 weeks and 66.7% (95% CI 29.9–92.5%) at 12 weeks—comparing to bevacizumab cohort: 18.2% (95% CI 5.2–40.3%) at 6 weeks and 12.5% (95% CI:1.6–38.3%) at 12 weeks. Treatment utility rates at 6 and 12 weeks were, respectively, 88.6% and 69.8% for bevacizumab, compared to 49% and 19.1% for cetuximab (p = 0.004), a difference confirmed in subset analyses. In patients with mCRC, cetuximab-containing regimens led to a progressive negative impact on PROs and global HRQoL, when compared to baseline and bevacizumab. Future research is needed to confirm these results. Our findings demonstrate the value of PROs when assessing comparative effectiveness of different treatment regimens.

© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved., Uncertainty exists regarding the comparative effectiveness of triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) as backbone first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triplet versus doublet chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy in mCRC. Methods and reporting followed PRISMA and SAMPL guidelines. Eight RCTs were included, comprising 1732 patients. In pooled analysis, FOLFOXIRI was associated with improvements in efficacy outcomes, notably with a 25% survival increase (95%CI: 10-37%). FOLFOXIRI was also associated with increased toxicity, with a non-significant 25% increase in the risk of patients experiencing grade ≥3 adverse events (95% CI: -3 to 61%) and with a 1.83 (95% CI: 1.62-2.07) increase in the rate ratio of grade ≥3 adverse events. Moderate quality evidence suggests that first-line FOLFOXIRI provides clinically meaningful efficacy benefits in this setting, at the expense of increased toxicity. Further research is warranted to better characterize safety and to evaluate the most beneficial combination with targeted agents.