Search

The demographic characteristics of breast cancer patients from disparate geographical regions vary considerably. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to present the clinicopathological features of breast cancer patients at our center and to conduct a comparative analysis with the findings of other studies. This retrospective descriptive study, which included 816 patients registered in the two years between October 2021 and September 2023, was conducted in the Department of Medical Oncology at a government tertiary cancer care center in southern India. At the initial presentation, the median age was 49 years, with the majority of patients being postmenopausal. The most common presenting complaint was a breast lump, which was reported in 636 cases (77.9%). Additionally, 115 cases (14.09%) involved axillary edema. A family history of breast cancer was evident in 19.9% (162/816) of the patients. Of the patients, 594 (72.8%) exhibited hormone receptor positivity. Of the total number of cases, 202 (nearly 25%) were positive for HER2/neu by FISH or IHC. A total of 178 patients (21.9%) were diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The majority of patients (46.8%) presented at a late stage, classified as Stage III. In cases of stage IV disease, there was a greater prevalence of skeletal metastases (40.3%) compared to visceral metastases. The present study offers insight into the current state of breast cancer patients in Southern India. The majority of patients were postmenopausal. Additionally, there has been an observed increase in the number of patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors, accompanied by a higher prevalence of metastatic disease involving skeletal metastasis compared to other sites. It is imperative to enhance awareness about breast cancer, assuage apprehensions, and disseminate information about the significance of screening, prompt diagnosis, and treatment. Such studies provide a foundation for understanding the extent of the problem and facilitate the identification of potential solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with locally advanced inoperable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma have a poor prognosis. The maximum benefit of systemic chemotherapy is usually achieved in the first-line setting. Even though systemic chemotherapy has been used for long time, in view of unsatisfactory results, no standard regimen has been emerged. Unfortunately, till date, there is no published prospective data from India, comparing the two most commonly used triplet regimens, epirubicin, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (ECF) and docetaxel, cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (DCF), in this patient population.Materials and Methods: The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the first-line systemic chemotherapy with ECF and DCF regimens in locally advanced inoperable or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity profile.Results: Between January 2015 and December 2016, 58 patients were assigned and treated with ECF (n = 30) or DCF (n = 28) regimens. The median OS was 9.4 months with ECF and 12.5 months with DCF regimen (log-rank, P = 0.000), while median PFS was 5.8 and 7.5 months, respectively (log-rank, P = 0.002). Patients in the DCF arm had more frequent reductions in chemotherapy doses than those of the ECF arm (28.6% vs. 16.7%; P = 0.54). As compared with the ECF, the DCF regimen was associated with more frequent Grades 3-4 toxicities-neutropenia (16.7% vs. 39.3%, P = 0.17), febrile neutropenia (13.3% vs. 25%, P = 0.52), mucositis (6.7% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.43), and diarrhea (6.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.67).Conclusions: In comparison to ECF, the DCF regimen was associated with a statistically significant 3.1 months longer median OS without any significant increase in Grades 3-4 toxicities. DCF can be considered as one of the reference regimens, in properly selected patients with advanced/metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]