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.

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.

Radionuclide therapy is a type of targeted therapy that can be useful in the treatment of several malignant tumors. Compared with other forms of systemic therapy used in cancer - including chemotherapy - it has the advantage of sparing biological structures adjacent to the tumor cells. This treatment modality has registered significant advances since its first use for the treatment of tuberculous skin lesions in the 1900s. This paper reviews the characteristics and clinical applications of therapeutic radionuclides commonly used in the oncology clinical practice, and discusses future potential applications.

135 Background: Immunotherapy (IO) has changed the disease course of metastatic malignant melanoma (mMM). Prognostic biomarkers are lacking, but high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been correlated with poor outcome. Lymphocyte-monocyte ratio (LMR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) are also readily available. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of NLR, LMR and PLR. Methods: Retrospective cohort of mMM patients (pts) treated with anti PD-1 blockade in 2 centers, between Jan ’13-Aug ’18. Baseline and 6-week (6 w) blood counts were collected. Cut-offs for NLR, LMR and PLR were defined based on literature and ROC curve method. Progression free survival (PFS; primary outcome) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using log rank test. Uni and multivariate analysis were performed using cox-regression model. Results: Baseline characteristics: 83 pts with median age 65.5 years (range 21-90), 77% BRAFwt, 98% PS-ECOG 0-1, 51% LDH >ULN, 5% on steroids. Median NLR 2.7 (IQR 2.1-3.8), LMR 3.1 (2.1-4.3) and PLR 160.8 (98.3-216.4). The majority of pts (65%) were treated with pembrolizumab. With a median follow-up of 6.2 months (m), median PFS was 7.3 m (CI 5.5-9.2) and median OS was 15.9 m (13.4-18.4). In the multivariate model, baseline NLRhigh (≥3.0) and PLRhigh (≥180.0) were associated with worse PFS (HR 2.04, CI 1.11-3.77; p=0.02; and HR 2.50, CI 1.37-4.57; p=0.003). Baseline LMRhigh (≤2.1) was associated with worse PFS (HR 1.886, CI 1.019-3.488; p=0.043) only on the univariate analysis. At 6 w, 16 out of 39 pts with baseline NLRhigh presented a decrease in NLR. This was associated with better PFS (HR 0.24, CI 0.09-0.62; p=0.003). Inversely, an increase ≥20% in NLR or PLR was associated with progression (HR 3.65, CI 1.99-6.72, p < 0.001; and HR 3.99, CI 2.01-7.91, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data showed that NLR and PLR, as surrogates for systemic inflammation, might be used as prognostic biomarkers for melanoma patients treated with IO. Decreasing NLR in pts with previously high NLR, has a 76% risk reduction of progression. In clinically challenging situations, these biomarkers may help the clinician in an earlier therapeutic orientation.

© 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.