Search

Abstract: With emerging new drugs in myelofibrosis (MF), a robust and harmonized framework for defining the severity of anemia and response to treatment will enhance clinical investigation and facilitate interstudy comparisons. Accordingly, the lead authors on the 2013 edition of the International Working Group-European LeukemiaNet (IWG-ELN) response criteria in MF were summoned to revise their document with the intent to (1) account for gender-specific differences in determining hemoglobin levels for eligibility criteria; (2) revise the definition of transfusion-dependent anemia (TDA) based on current restrictive transfusion practices; and (3) provide a structurally simple and easy to apply response criteria that are sensitive enough to detect efficacy signals (minor response) and also account for major responses. The initial draft of the 2024 IWG-ELN proposed criteria was subsequently circulated around a wider group of international experts and their feedback incorporated. The proposed articles include new definitions for TDA (≥3 units in the 12 weeks before study enrollment) and hemoglobin thresholds for eligibility criteria (<10 g/dL for women and <11 g/dL for men). The revised document also provides separate (TDA vs non-TDA) and graded (major vs minor response) response criteria while preserving the requirement for a 12-week period of screening and observation on treatment., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: The EORTC Quality of Life Group has developed a questionnaire to evaluate cancer patients' perception of their communication with healthcare professionals (HCPs): the EORTC QLQ-COMU26. In this study we test the validity and reliability of this novel measure in an international and culturally diverse sample of cancer patients., Methods: Cancer patients completed the following EORTC questionnaires at two time points (before and during treatment): the QLQ-COMU26 (including a debriefing questionnaire), the QLQ-C30, and specific IN-PATSAT32 scales. These data were used to assess: the cross-cultural applicability, acceptability, scale structure, reliability, convergent/divergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change of the QLQ-COMU26., Results: Data were collected from 498 patients with various cancer diagnoses in 10 European countries, Japan, Jordan and India (overall 5 cultural regions). At most, only 3% of patients identified an item as confusing and 0.6% as upsetting, which indicates that the questionnaire was clear and did not trigger negative emotional responses. Confirmatory factor analysis and multi-trait scaling confirmed the hypothesised QLQ-COMU26 scale structure comprising six multi-item scales and four single items (RMSEA = 0.025). Reliability was good for all scales (internal consistency > 0.70; test-retest reliability > 0.85). Convergent validity was supported by correlations of ≥ 0.50 with related scales of the IN-PATSAT32 and correlations < 0.30 with unrelated QLQ-C30 scales. Known-groups validity was shown according to sex, education, levels of anxiety and depression, satisfaction with communication, disease stage and treatment intention, professional evaluated, and having a companion during the visit. The QLQ-COMU26 captured changes over time in groups that were defined based on changes in the item of satisfaction with communication., Conclusion: The EORTC QLQ-COMU26 is a reliable and valid measure of patients' perceptions of their communication with HCPs. The EORTC QLQ-COMU26 can be used in daily clinical practice and research and in various cancer patient groups from different cultures. This questionnaire can help to improve communication between patients and healthcare professionals., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is a complex therapy, which requires dedicated facilities and expertise. However, the management and provision of HPN differs significantly between countries and between HPN centers within countries. These differences lead to heterogeneity in the quality of care received by patients, with variable impact on the appropriateness, safety, and effectiveness of HPN, and resultant variability in the quality of life that a patient may expect. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) have published guidelines on the appropriate and safe provision of HPN, with an associated practical version describing a short and precise way to implement the guidelines' recommendations in clinical practice. This educational paper suggests means of implementation of evidence supported HPN guidelines, using "operational recommendations" applitngto healthcare professionals, administrators and stakeholders, with the ultimate aim of enhancing equity of patient access to an appropriate and safe HPN program of care., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Both the incidence and prevalence of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours from the small intestine (Si-NET) are gradually increasing. Most patients have non-functioning tumours with subtle GI symptoms and tumours are often discovered incidentally by endoscopy or at advanced disease stages by imaging depicting mesenteric lymph node and /or liver metastases while around 30% of the patients present with symptoms of the carcinoid syndrome. Adequate biochemical assessment and staging including functional imaging is crucial for treatment-related decision-making that should take place in an expert multidisciplinary team setting. Preferably, patients should be referred to specialised ENETS Centres of Excellence or centres of high expertise in the field. This guidance paper provides the current evidence and best knowledge for the management of Si-NET grade (G) 1-3 following 10 key questions of practical relevance for the diagnostic and therapeutic decision making., (© 2024 British Society for Neuroendocrinology.)

Objective: Paragangliomas of the urinary bladder (UBPGLs) are rare neuroendocrine tumours and pose a diagnostic and surgical challenge. It remains unclear what factors contribute to a timely presurgical diagnosis. The purpose of this study is to identify factors contributing to missing the diagnosis of UBPGLs before surgery., Design, Patients and Measurements: A total of 73 patients from 11 centres in China, and 51 patients from 6 centres in Europe and 1 center in the United States were included. Clinical, surgical and genetic data were collected and compared in patients diagnosed before versus after surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify clinical factors associated with initiation of presurgical biochemical testing., Results: Among all patients, only 47.6% were diagnosed before surgery. These patients were younger (34.0 vs. 54.0 years, p < .001), had larger tumours (2.9 vs. 1.8 cm, p < .001), and more had a SDHB pathogenic variant (54.7% vs. 11.9%, p < .001) than those diagnosed after surgery. Patients with presurgical diagnosis presented with more micturition spells (39.7% vs. 15.9%, p = .003), hypertension (50.0% vs. 31.7%, p = .041) and catecholamine-related symptoms (37.9% vs. 17.5%, p = .012). Multivariable logistic analysis revealed that presence of younger age (<35 years, odds ratio [OR] = 6.47, p = .013), micturition spells (OR = 6.79, p = .007), hypertension (OR = 3.98, p = .011), and sweating (OR = 41.72, p = .013) increased the probability of initiating presurgical biochemical testing., Conclusions: Most patients with UBPGL are diagnosed after surgery. Young age, hypertension, micturition spells and sweating are clues in assisting to initiate early biochemical testing and thus may establish a timely presurgical diagnosis., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma are bone tumors mostly diagnosed in children, adolescents, and young adults. Despite multimodal therapy, morbidity is high and survival rates remain low, especially in the metastatic disease setting. Trials investigating targeted therapies and immunotherapies have not been groundbreaking. Better understanding of biological subgroups, the role of the tumor immune microenvironment, factors that promote metastasis, and clinical biomarkers of prognosis and drug response are required to make progress. A prerequisite to achieve desired success is a thorough, systematic, and clinically linked biological analysis of patient samples, but disease rarity and tissue processing challenges such as logistics and infrastructure have contributed to a lack of relevant samples for clinical care and research. There is a need for a Europe-wide framework to be implemented for the adequate and minimal sampling, processing, storage, and analysis of patient samples. Two international panels of scientists, clinicians, and patient and parent advocates have formed the Fight Osteosarcoma Through European Research consortium and the Euro Ewing Consortium. The consortia shared their expertise and institutional practices to formulate new guidelines. We report new reference standards for adequate and minimally required sampling (time points, diagnostic samples, and liquid biopsy tubes), handling, and biobanking to enable advanced biological studies in bone sarcoma. We describe standards for analysis and annotation to drive collaboration and data harmonization with practical, legal, and ethical considerations. This position paper provides comprehensive guidelines that should become the new standards of care that will accelerate scientific progress, promote collaboration, and improve outcomes., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals with cancer have specific and unique health issues and needs. Reports persist of inequalities in the care provided for these patients, making it important to assess the attitudes and knowledge of LGBTQ needs among those who provide care., Materials and Methods: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe) Adolescents and Young Adults Working Group designed this survey comprising 67 questions covering demographics, knowledge, and education of LGBTQ health needs, and attitudes regarding LGBTQ patients with cancer., Results: Among the 672 respondents, a majority do not ask about sexual orientation and gender identity during first visit (64% and 58%, respectively). Only a minority of the respondents considered themselves well informed regarding gay/lesbian and transgender patients' health (44% and 25%, respectively) and psychosocial needs (34%). There was high interest in receiving education regarding the unique health needs of LGBTQ patients (73%)., Conclusions: Survey respondents indicated a willingness to provide care to LGBTQ patients, but a lack of confidence in the knowledge of the health issues and needs of LGBTQ individuals. Lack of training provided in medical schools and postgraduate training programmes and strong interest for additional education on these issues were reported., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The European Breast Cancer Council (EBCC) traditionally identifies controversies or major deficiencies in the management of patients with breast cancer and selects a multidisciplinary expert team to collaborate in setting crucial principles and recommendations to improve breast cancer care. The 2024 EBCC manifesto focuses on disparities in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer. There are several reasons for existing disparities both between and within countries. Our recommendations aim to address the stigma of metastatic disease, which has led to significant disparities in access to innovative care regardless of the gross national income of a country. These recommendations are for different stakeholders to promote the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe and worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MI reports speaker fees/honoraria from Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Daichi, Menarini/Stemline and Gilead, research grants (to institution) from Pfizer, Roche, Inivata Inc, Natera Inc and Gilead, and meeting/travel grants from Roche, AstraZeneca and Gilead (all outside the submitted work). TS reports personal fees for advisory board participation from MSD and Roche and for invited speaker engagements at regional conferences from Roche and Pfizer (outside the submitted work). EB reports honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly and Incyte, consulting/advisory roles for Pfizer, Sandoz-Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca and Menarini, and travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer and Novartis. DL reports payment (to institution) from the European Medicines Agency for board participation and payment (to institution) from the ESMO Sarcoma and Rare Cancers meeting for participation as a guest speaker. GSS reports institutional research support from Agendia, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Seagen. He is a board member of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. AV-S reports speaker honoraria from Ibex Medical Analytics, Myriad, AstraZeneca, Roche and MSD, advisory board participation for Ibex Medical Analytics and Primaa, travel support from Ibex Medical Analytics and AstraZeneca, research grants from Ibex Medical Analytics, Owkin, Primaa, AstraZeneca and MSD Avenir, and stock options for Ibex Medical Analytics. IM declares small fees as honoraria for advisory boards supported by Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Menarini Stemline. PA reports honoraria from Synthon, Roche and Gilead, consulting or advisory roles for MacroGenics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, amcure, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Servier, G1 Therapeutics, Radius Health, Deloitte, Menarini, Gilead Sciences, Incyte and Lilly, research funding from Roche (to institution) and travel/accommodation/expenses from Amgen, MSD Oncology, Roche Belgium, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca and Gilead Sciences. FC reports consultancy roles for Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, MacroGenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva and TouchIME. VPR reports no conflict of interest related to the current article and reports grants from Agendia BV more than 5 years ago. DC reports non-personal relationships (any fees go to employer) with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Seagen, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Synthon, GSK, Gilead, Daichi and Menarini/Stemline; he is Chair of the Board of the non-profit “Make 2nds Count” charity and the Breast International Group. FP, FVD, OK-P and FL report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Genomic tumour profiling has a crucial role in the management of patients with solid cancers, as it helps selecting and prioritising therapeutic interventions based on prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as identifying markers of hereditary cancers. Harmonised approaches to interpret the results of genomic testing are needed to support physicians in their decision making, prevent inequalities in precision medicine and maximise patient benefit from available cancer management options., Methods: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group assembled a group of international experts to propose recommendations for preparing clinical genomic reports for solid cancers. These recommendations aim to foster best practices in integrating genomic testing within clinical settings. After review of available evidence, several rounds of surveys and focused discussions were conducted to reach consensus on the recommendation statements. Only consensus recommendations were reported. Recommendation statements were graded in two tiers based on their clinical importance: level A (required to maintain common standards in reporting) and level B (optional but necessary to achieve ideal practice)., Results: Genomics reports should present key information in a front page(s) followed by supplementary information in one or more appendices. Reports should be structured into sections: (i) patient and sample details; (ii) assay and data analysis characteristics; (iii) sample-specific assay performance and quality control; (iv) genomic alterations and their functional annotation; (v) clinical actionability assessment and matching to potential therapy indications; and (vi) summary of the main findings. Specific recommendations to prepare each of these sections are made., Conclusions: We present a set of recommendations aimed at structuring genomics reports to enhance physician comprehension of genomic profiling results for solid cancers. Communication between ordering physicians and professionals reporting genomic data is key to minimise uncertainties and to optimise the impact of genomic tests in patient care., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Cancer Core Europe brings together the expertise, resources, and interests of seven leading cancer institutes committed to leveraging collective innovation and collaboration in precision oncology. Through targeted efforts addressing key medical challenges in cancer and partnerships with multiple stakeholders, the consortium seeks to advance cancer research and enhance equitable patient care., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The tumour-agnostic authorisations of larotrectinib and entrectinib shifted the paradigm for indication setting. European healthcare decision-makers agreed on their therapeutic potential but diverged primarily in identified uncertainties concerning basket trial designs and endpoints, prognostic value of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, and resistance mechanisms. In addition, assessments of relevant comparators, unmet medical needs (UMNs), and implementation of NTRK-testing strategies diverged. In particular, the tumour-specific reimbursement recommendations and guidelines do not reflect tumour-agnostic thinking. These differences indicate difficulties experienced in these assessments and provide valuable lessons for future disruptive therapies. As we discuss here, early multistakeholder dialogues concerning minimum evidence requirements and involving clinicians are essential., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) is a common presentation of liposarcoma. Despite established diagnostic and treatment guidelines for DDLPS, critical clinical gaps remain driven by diagnostic challenges, symptom burden and the lack of targeted, safe and effective treatments. The objective of this study was to gather expert opinions from Europe and the United States on the management, unmet needs and expectations for clinical trial design as well as the value of progression-free survival (PFS) in this disease. Other aims included raising awareness and educate key stakeholders across healthcare systems., Materials and Methods: An international panel of 12 sarcoma key opinion leaders (KOLs) was recruited. The study consisted of two rounds of surveys with pre-defined statements. Experts scored each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus agreement was defined as ≥75% of experts scoring a statement with ≥7. Revised statements were discussed in a consensus meeting., Results: Consensus was reached on 43 of 55 pre-defined statements across disease burden, treatment paradigm, unmet needs, value of PFS and its association with overall survival (OS), and cross-over trial design. Twelve statements were deprioritised or merged with other statements. There were no statements where experts disagreed., Conclusion: This study constitutes the first international Delphi panel on DDLPS. It aimed to explore KOL perception of the disease burden and unmet need in DDLPS, the value of PFS, and its potential translation to OS benefit, as well as the relevance of a cross-over trial design for DDLPS therapies. Results indicate an alignment across Europe and the United States regarding DDLPS management, unmet needs, and expectations for clinical trials. Raising awareness of critical clinical gaps in relation to DDLPS can contribute to improving patient outcomes and supporting the development of innovative treatments., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advancements in the field of precision medicine have prompted the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group to update the recommendations for the use of tumour next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with advanced cancers in routine practice., Methods: The group discussed the clinical impact of tumour NGS in guiding treatment decision using the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) considering cost-effectiveness and accessibility., Results: As for 2020 recommendations, ESMO recommends running tumour NGS in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, and ovarian cancer. Moreover, it is recommended to carry out tumour NGS in clinical research centres and under specific circumstances discussed with patients. In this updated report, the consensus within the group has led to an expansion of the recommendations to encompass patients with advanced breast cancer and rare tumours such as gastrointestinal stromal tumours, sarcoma, thyroid cancer, and cancer of unknown primary. Finally, ESMO recommends carrying out tumour NGS to detect tumour-agnostic alterations in patients with metastatic cancers where access to matched therapies is available., Conclusion: Tumour NGS is increasingly expanding its scope and application within oncology with the aim of enhancing the efficacy of precision medicine for patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosure MFM reports receipt of a fee to institution as an invited speaker from Novartis; part-time employment in PEGASCY. CBW reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from BMS, Celgene, Rafael, RedHill, Roche, Shire/Baxalta; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Falk, GSK, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, Taiho; receipt of a fee for an expert testimony from Janssen; receipt of travel support from Bayer, Celgene, RedHill, Roche, Servier, Taiho; non-financial interest for receipt of research grant both personal and to institution from Roche; non-financial interest for serving as an officer in AIO—Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (Germany); non-financial interest for advisory role in EU Commission—DG RTD as a member of the EU Commission Mission Board for Cancer. ASt reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Aignostics, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Thermo Fisher; receipt of a fee to institution for participation in Advisory Board from BMS, Novartis, Takeda; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Incyte, Roche; receipt of research grant to institution from Bayer, BMS, Chugai, Incyte. FB reports receipt of a fee to institution for participation in Advisory Board from AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Ignyta, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; non-financial interest as a principal investigator from AstraZeneca, BMS, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Innate Pharma, Merck, Mirati, Piere Fabre. AB reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Sanofi; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Roche. IB reports receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca. JB reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from BMS, Janssen, MSD; receipt of funding for study to institution from BMS. EC reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Janssen, Medscape, Pfizer; receipt of funding to institution from AstraZeneca; receipt of research grants to institution from Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer; receipt of a fee to institution as a local principal investigator from Janssen, MSD, Pfizer. RD reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Foundation Medicine, Roche; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, Libbs, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda; part-time employment in Oncoclinicas; owning stocks/shares in Trialing; receipt of a research grant from Merck; receipt of research grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis. AK reports receipt of a fee to institution for participation in Advisory Board from Roche; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Roche; funding to institution from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS); non-financial interest as a principal investigator from Roche. AC reports receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. FMB reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Biovica, Eisai, Karyopharm, Protai, Seagen, Theratechnologies, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals; receipt of a fee for consultancy from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Black Diamond Therapeutics, EcoR1, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., GT Aperion Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Lengo Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, Menarini Group, OnCusp Therapeutics, Seagen, Tallac Therapeutics, Zymeworks; non-financial interest as a coordinating principal investigator from AstraZeneca; non-financial interest as a local principal investigator from Aileron Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, Calithera Biosciences, Curis Inc., CytomX Therapeutics Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., Debiopharm International, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Genentech Inc., Guardant Health Inc., KLUS Pharma, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceuticals Co.; receipt of research grants to institution from Aileron Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, CytomX Therapeutics Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, Repare Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals Co., Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co.; non-financial interest for serving as a Steering Committee Member from Genentech Inc.; receipt of travel support from Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, European Organisation for Research and Treatment (EORTC), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). SM reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board, Study Scientific Committee member from Roche, receipt of a fee as DSMB member from Biophytis, IQVIA, Kedrion Biopharma, Servier, Yuhan Corporation. RM reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology; receipt of a fee for expert testimony from Shionogi and Ellipses. NN reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Incyte, Novartis, Roche; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Eli Lilly, Illumina, Merck, MSD, Thermo Fisher, Roche, Novartis, Sophia Genetics, GSK, Servier; receipt of research grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Illumina, Incyte, Merck, QIAGEN, Roche, Thermo Fisher. JRF reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, Bain Capital, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, MultiplexDX, Inc., Paige.AI, Personalis, Repare Therapeutics, Roche Tissue Diagnostics; receipt of a fee for consulting from Eli Lilly, Goldman Sachs, Paige.AI, Repare Therapeutics, Saga Diagnostics; financial interest as a member of Board of Directors from Grupo Oncoclinicas, Odyssey Bio; owning stock options in Paige.AI, Repare Therapeutics; non-financial interest from a leadership role as a President of International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) and a Past President of Italian Cancer Society (SIC). JR reports receipt of grants/research support from MSD, AstraZeneca; receipt of a fee to institution for participation in Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, EDIMARK; for conducting sponsored research to institution from Merck; receipt of a fee to institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Takeda, Janssen, Roche; non-financial interest for a leadership role as a Secretary of EORTC Lung Cancer Group. MR reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from myMedEd; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Clinical Care Options, MJH Holdings, myMedEd, Physician’s Education Resource; receipt of a fee for review guideline pathways from Change Healthcare; receipt of a fee to institution as a local principal investigator from AstraZeneca, Merck, or co-principal investigator from Merck and local co-principal investigator from Pfizer; non-financial interest for serving as a Steering Committee Member from AstraZeneca, Merck; non-financial interest for advisory role in Tempus Labs, Zenith Pharmaceuticals; non-financial interest for providing editorial services for medical writing from AstraZeneca, Pfizer; non-financial interest as a member of ASCO. ER reports receipt of a fee to institution for participation in Advisory Board from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche; receipt of a fee to institution as an invited speaker from BMS, Clovis; receipt of funding for data base to institution from AstraZeneca. ASc reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Incyte; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Amgen, Aristea—MSD, Tesaro-GSK. CS reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, IDRx, Immunicum, New Bay; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from Roche, PharmaMar; receipt of a fee as Steering Committee Member, both personal and to institution, from Deciphera, NewBay; receipt of research grants to institution from IDRx; receipt of travel grant from Bayer AG, Gilead, Pfizer, PharmaMar; non-financial interest as ESMO Faculty member and serving as a member of Board of Directors in the Spanish Group for Sarcoma Research (GEIS) and Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM). JM reports receipt of a fee for participation in Advisory Board from Amgen, Amunix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche; receipt of a fee to institution for participation in Advisory Board from Nuage Therapeutics; receipt of a fee as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, GuardantHealth, MSD; receipt of research grants to institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer Oncology; non-financial interest from receiving product samples for access to drugs in early development for preclinical testing from AstraZeneca. FA reports receipt of a fee to institution for participation in Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, Boston Pharmaceutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Guardant Health, Eli Lilly, N-Power Medicine, Novartis, Owkin, Pfizer, Roche, Servier; receipt of a personal fee for participation in Advisory Board from Lilly France; receipt of research grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant Health, Ely Lilly, Novartis, Owkin, Pfizer, Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify predictors of sexual satisfaction in patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers., Methods: Cross-sectional study using baseline survey data from a randomized controlled trial in six European countries. Patients with advanced cancer and their family caregiver completed measures on sexual satisfaction (one item from Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General questionnaire for patients and Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer scale for family caregivers) and health-related characteristics. Multivariable linear regressions were performed for all predictors (identified based on literature) with sexual satisfaction as dependent variable., Results: The sample comprised 431 patient-family caregiver dyads. Patients with prostate or gynecological cancer reported lower sexual satisfaction (respectively B = -0.267 95% CI: -1.674, -0.594 and B = -0.196, 95% CI -2.103, -0.452). Higher emotional (B = 0.278, 95% CI 0.024, 0.057) physical (B = 0.305, 95% CI 0.012, 0.025) and social functioning (B = 0.151, 95% CI 0.001, 0.013), global health (B = 0.356, 95% CI 0.007, 0.013) and social wellbeing (B = 0.161, 95% CI 0.013, 0.082) among patients were associated with higher sexual satisfaction. Among family caregivers, sexual satisfaction was lower with increased age (B = -0.142, 95% CI -0.022, -0.004). Higher emotional functioning (B = 0.027, 95% CI 0.011, 0.043) and quality of life (B = 0.165, 95% CI -0.165, 0.716) were associated with higher sexual satisfaction in family caregivers., Conclusions: The results underscore that sexual wellbeing of patients and family caregivers is related to health related factors in physical, emotional, and social domains. Patients and family caregivers could benefit from a dyadic approach to address sexual wellbeing., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) has advocated the establishment of guidelines to optimise precision radiotherapy (RT) in conjunction with contemporary therapeutics for cancer care. Quality assurance in RT (QART) plays a pivotal role in influencing treatment outcomes. Clinical trials incorporating QART protocols have demonstrated improved survival rates with minimal associated toxicity. Nonetheless, in routine clinical practice, there can be variability in the indications for RT, dosage, fractionation, and treatment planning, leading to uncertainty. In pivotal trials reporting outcomes of systemic therapy for breast cancer, there is limited information available regarding RT, and the potential interaction between modern systemic therapy and RT remains largely uncharted. This article is grounded in a consensus recommendation endorsed by ESTRO, formulated by international breast cancer experts. The consensus was reached through a modified Delphi process and was presented at an international meeting convened in Florence, Italy, in June 2023. These recommendations are regarded as both optimal and essential standards, with the latter aiming to define the minimum requirements. A template for a case report form (CRF) has been devised, which can be utilised by all clinical breast cancer trials involving RT. Optimal requirements include adherence to predefined RT planning protocols and centralised QART. Essential requirements aim to reduce variations and deviations from the guidelines in RT, even when RT is not the primary focus of the trial. These recommendations underscore the significance of implementing these practices in both clinical trials and daily clinical routines to generate high-quality data., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest IMe declares advisory boards supported by Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca. CB declares honoraria supported by declares advisory boards supported by Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Amgen. ML received honoraria and/or participated in advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, SeaGen, MSD, Exact Sciences, Takeda, Ipsen, Sandoz, Libbs & Knight, a travel grant from Gilead and research support to the Institution from Gilead. EdA disclosed honoraria and/or advisory board from Roche/GNE, Novartis, SeaGen, Zodiac, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, AstraZeneca. JC disclosed consulting/advisor for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, Hibercell, BioInvent, Gemoab, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies. NH disclosed honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, SeaGen. HSR disclosed institutional research support by Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG/Genentech, Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck & Co. Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Pionyr Immunotherapeutics, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals Inc., Taiho Oncology Inc., and Veru Inc. GC reports personal fees for consulting, advisory role and speakers’ bureau from Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Samsung and Daiichi Sankyo; honoraria from Ellipses Pharma and fees for travel and accommodations from Roche/Genentech and Pfizer. LV declares participation on advisory board from Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. ME declares advisory board supported by Pfizer and Novartis and lecture fees supported by AstraZeneca. GM declares consultancy honoraria from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Jensen, Lilly, and Sanofi. LDM declares consulting fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, SeaGen, Gilead, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Stemline Menarini, Exact Sciences, Agendia, GSK, Pfizer. No other competing interests declared., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The relapse rate in patients with clinical stage I (CSI) seminomatous germ cell tumor of the testis (SGCTT) who were undergoing surveillance after radical orchidectomy is 4-30%, depending on tumor size and rete testis invasion (RTI). However, the level of evidence supporting the use of both risk factors in clinical decision-making is low., Objective: We aimed to identify the most important prognostic factors for relapse in CSI SGCTT patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual patient data for 1016 CSI SGCTT patients diagnosed between 1994 and 2019 with normal postorchidectomy serum tumor marker levels and undergoing surveillance were collected from nine institutions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were fit to identify the most important prognostic factors. The primary endpoint was the time to first relapse by imaging and/or markers. Relapse probabilities were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method., Results and Limitations: After a median follow-up of 7.7 yr, 149 (14.7%) patients had relapsed. Categorical tumor size (≤2, >2-5, and >5 cm), presence of RTI, and lymphovascular invasion were used to form three risk groups: low (56.4%), intermediate (41.3%), and high (2.3%) risks with 5-yr cumulative relapse probabilities of 8%, 20%, and 44%, respectively. The model outperformed the currently used model with tumor size ≤4 versus >4 cm and presence of RTI (Harrell's C index 0.65 vs 0.61). The low- and intermediate-risk groups were validated successfully in an independent cohort of 285 patients., Conclusions: The risk of relapse after radical orchidectomy in CSI SGCTT patients under surveillance is low. We propose a new risk stratification model that outperformed the current model and identified a small subgroup with a high risk of relapse., Patient Summary: The risk of relapse after radical orchidectomy in patients with clinical stage I seminomatous germ cell tumor of the testis is low. We propose a new risk stratification model that outperformed the current model and identified a small subgroup with a high risk of relapse., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD)., Methods: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD., Results: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended., Discussion: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. van Laarhoven reports a consultant or advisory role: Amphera, Anocca, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer, Daiichy-Sankyo, Dragonfly, MSD, Myeloid, Servier; Research funding, medication supply, and/or other research support: Auristone, Incyte, Merck, ORCA, Servier; Speaker role: Astellas, Beigene, Benecke, BMS, Daiichy-Sankyo, JAAP, Medtalks, Novartis, Springer, Travel Congress Management B.V. Dr. Muijs reports institutional grants from: Elekta, IBA, RaySearch, Siemens, Mirada, Bergoz Instrumentation and Medical Data Works, KWF, all outside the submitted work. Dr. van Hillegersberg has a consulting and advisory role at Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, Olympus and J&J Ethicon. Dr. de Manzoni reports personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gani reports travel grants from Elekta and departmental research cooperation, outside the submitted work. Dr. Smyth is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Oxford (the views expressed in this Article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health) and resports personal fees/grants from: Astra Zeneca, Beigene, BMS, Amal Therapeutics, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zymeworks, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Haj Mohammad reports consulation fees from: Merck, BMS, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, and research funding from Servier, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Adenis reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees from: BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, non-financial support from Servier, grants from Sanofi, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Lordick reports grants from: BMS and Gilead, personal fees from: Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, Incyte, Merck, MSD, Roche, Servier, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Slingerland reports an advisory role at BMS and Lilly. Dr. van Berge Henegouwen received researcher-initiated grant from Stryker and is consultant for Alesi Surgical, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, BBraun and Viatris. Dr Nilsson reports advisory roles for BMS and Medtronic. Dr. Tabernero reports personal financial interest in form of scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc; and also educational collaboration with Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). Dr. Tabernero declares institutional financial interest in form of financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International SA, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen-Cilag SA, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health KGAA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica SA, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho Pharma USA Inc, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Nieuwenhuijzen reports advisory/speaker roles from Medtronic and Lilly. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT., Methods: The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II-IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18-65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m 2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m 2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1-5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m 2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1-19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258., Findings: Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84-92) versus 72% (67-79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67-79) versus 86% (82-91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3-5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3-5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238)., Interpretation: Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined., Funding: Janssen and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MD reports research grants for clinical studies from AbbVie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Roche; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche; travel support from Janssen and Roche; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Novartis, and Roche. JDo reports payment for expert testimony (once Advisory Board) from Lilly. EG reports grants from Janssen; honoraria (educational lecture) from Genmab, Gilead, Janssen, and Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen and Roche; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Gilead/Kite and Miltenyi Biotec. MJ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, and Roche; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre. JW reports grants to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, Servier, and Takeda; participation on an Advisory Board from AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda. MHu reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Roche, and Takeda. UM reports travel support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, and Roche; Advisory Board role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; participation in national Guideline committee for the German-Swiss-Austrian Guideline for Mantle Cell Lymphoma. JR reports participation on an Advisory Board for AstraZeneca. VV reports consulting fees from AbbVie, BeiGene, Gilead, Lilly, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen; payment for expert testimony from Gilead and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and Gilead. MGdS reports a research grant from AstraZeneca; payment for Advisory Boards from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for educational events from Gilead and Janssen-Cilag; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche; leadership in a scientific society (Sociedade Portuguesa de Hematologia); administration board on a patient advocacy group (Associação Portuguesa Contra a Leucemia). SL reports grants or contracts to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genmab, HUTCHMED, Novartis, and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, Genmab, Gilead, Novartis, ORION Pharma, Roche, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead, Incyte, and Novartis; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Incyte. StS reports grants or contracts from any entity from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; consulting fees from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, BeiGene, EUSA Pharma, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda. RJ reports travel support for meeting attendance from BeiGene; meeting fee from Janssen. GH reports grants or contracts for clinical research from AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Janssen, MorphoSys, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Miltenyi Biotec, Novartis, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead/Kite and Janssen; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Miltenyi Biotec. CV reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Istituto Gentili, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. TvM reports payment or honoraria for educational lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for GE HealthCare and Gilead/Kite. SW reports payment to his institution from AbbVie, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from Stemline Therapeutics; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and BeiGene; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Roche, and Stemline Therapeutics. PLZ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda. UN reports consulting fees to his institution from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events to his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda. CH reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pfizer; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and Janssen. MHa reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Falk Foundation, Gilead, Novartis, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi); payment for expert testimony from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi). WK reports research grants provided to his institution from Amgen, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda. DG reports support for attending meetings and travel from Janssen. CS reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead/Kite. MU reports institutional funding of the TRIANGLE trial from Janssen. ML reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, and Lilly; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, and Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board with Acerta. All other authors (MT, OS, LJ, MC, LA, PH, FB, KS, JDi, CP, and EH) declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the two European Union (EU)-funded projects, PCM4EU (Personalized Cancer Medicine for all EU citizens) and PRIME-ROSE (Precision Cancer Medicine Repurposing System Using Pragmatic Clinical Trials), we aim to facilitate implementation of precision cancer medicine (PCM) in Europe by leveraging the experience from ongoing national initiatives that have already been particularly successful., Patients and Methods: PCM4EU and PRIME-ROSE gather 17 and 24 partners, respectively, from 19 European countries. The projects are based on a network of Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP)-like clinical trials that are currently ongoing or soon to start in 11 different countries, and with more trials expected to be established soon. The main aims of both the projects are to improve implementation pathways from molecular diagnostics to treatment, and reimbursement of diagnostics and tumour-tailored therapies to provide examples of best practices for PCM in Europe., Results: PCM4EU and PRIME-ROSE were launched in January and July 2023, respectively. Educational materials, including a podcast series, are already available from the PCM4EU website (http://www.pcm4eu.eu). The first reports, including an overview of requirements for the reimbursement systems in participating countries and a guide on patient involvement, are expected to be published in 2024., Conclusion: PCM4EU and PRIME-ROSE were launched in January and July 2023, respectively. Educational materials, including a podcast series, are already available from the PCM4EU website (http://www.pcm4eu.eu). The first reports, including an overview of requirements for the reimbursement systems in participating countries and a guide on patient involvement, are expected to be published in 2024., Conclusion: European collaboration can facilitate the implementation of PCM and thereby provide affordable and equitable access to precision diagnostics and matched therapies for more patients.

Platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is difficult to treat and has a poor prognosis. Patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer have limited treatment options and often have a limited benefit from existing chemotherapeutic agents. There is a lack of contemporary effective anticancer drugs and reliable predictive biomarkers for this aggressive cancer. Recent cutting-edge research presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meetings has provided insights into several potential therapeutic targets, such as DNA damage repair proteins, cell-cycle regulators, and immune-modulating agents. In addition, antibody-drug conjugates have provided new practice-changing results in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Here, we review the results of research presented at this annual event, with a focus on clinical trials investigating novel treatment approaches for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, in addition to predictive and prognostic biomarkers for optimal patient selection, and other topics, such as real-world evidence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KE reports receiving fees and honoraria from NCODA, Techspert, Elsevier and Springer and funding from the Cancer Research Institute (Morocco). DT, SA, and OA: nothing to report. AM: reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure IL reports personal fees for writing engagements for ESMO and Roche; personal and institutional fees as coordinating principal investigator (PI) for Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celon, Incyte, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Pfizer, Rhizen, Roche, RyVu and Siropa; institutional research grants from Agenus and Roche; non-financial interests as project lead for MSCI and board member for OECI; spouse has co-ownership of Clininote. JCB reports personal fees as a data safety monitoring board member for 4SC; personal fees as an advisory board member for Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer, InProTher, Merck, Recordati and Sanofi; institutional research grants from Alcedis, IQVIA and Merck; non-financial interests for receipt of product samples from 4SC. PAA reports personal fees for consultancy roles for 4SC, AstraZeneca, Bio-AI Health, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Idera, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, iTeos, Lunaphone, Medicenna, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Nouscom, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Pfizer/Array, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimmune, Roche Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and ValoTx; personal fees for advisory roles for 4SC, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Idera, Immunocore, iTeos, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer/Array, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimmune, Roche Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seagen, Sun Pharma and ValoTx; personal fees as an advisory board member from Erasca, iTeos, Replimmune and ValoTx; personal fees as travel support from Bio-AI-Health, Pfizer/Array and Replimmune; institutional funding from BMS, Pfizer/Array, Roche Genentech and Sanofi; non-financial interests as President of SCITO (Campania Society of ImmunoTherapy of Cancer) and Fondazione Melanoma Onlus Italy; non-financial interests as a member of the board of directors of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC; November 2017-December 2021) and a member of the steering committee for the Society for Melanoma Research (SMR); non-financial interests as a member of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Melanoma Cooperative Group, SITC and SMR. MV reports no potential conflicts of interests. ABl reports personal fees for advisory board membership from Merck (consultant for revision of approval of avelumab by French authorities). CL reports personal fees as an advisory board member from Amgen, BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; funding from BMS and Roche; non-financial interests for advisory roles for Amgen, BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Roche; travel/accommodation expenses from Avantis Medical Systems, BMS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; research funding from BMS and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board/advisory board for InfalRx. EM reports no potential conflicts of interests. OH-V reports no potential conflicts of interests. MG reports personal fees for expert testimony from Almirall; personal fees as an advisory board member for GSK, Leo Pharma and Pfizer; personal fees as an invited speaker from GSK, Janssen, Lilly and Novartis; personal stocks/shares in BioNTech, Novo Nordisk and Siemens Healthineers; institutional fees as coordinating PI for Argenx and as local PI for Boehringer Ingelheim, Galderma, Janssen, Novartis and UCB Pharma; non-financial interests as Treasurer of the Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft (DDG) and member of the board of directors of University Hospital Würzburg. HK reports no potential conflicts of interests. PN reports personal fees as an advisory board member for 4SC, BMS, IDEAYA Biosciences, Immunocore, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer; personal fees as an invited speaker for Novartis; institutional research support from Immunocore; non-financial interests as a steering committee member (personal) for 4SC and coordinating PI (institutional) for BMS, Immunocore, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer. PR reports personal fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; personal fees as an advisory board member for Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Merck, MSD, Philogen, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; institutional research grants from BMS and Pfizer; non-financial interests as President of the Polish Oncological Society and a member of the board of directors of the Polish Society of Surgical Oncology. MS reports personal fees as an invited speaker for Aristo-Pharma, Medac, Novartis and Takeda; personal fees as an advisory board member for Novartis and Takeda; personal fees as a PI for Amgen, Dermira, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma, Parexel International and Regeneron; personal fees as a sub-investigator (SI) for OBWF NIO-PIB, Eli Lilly and Takeda. DS reports personal fees as an invited speaker for BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; personal fees as an advisory board member for BMS, Immunocore, MSD, Neracare, Novartis, Pfizer, Philogen, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi/Regeneron; personal fees as a steering committee member for BMS, MSD and Novartis; institutional research grants from BMS and MSD; institutional fees as coordinating PI for BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; institutional fees as local PI for Philogen and Sanofi; a non-financial interest as a member of the board of directors of EORTC-MG. JMP reports personal fees as an advisory board member for Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Roche and VCN Biosciences; personal and institutional research grants from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Mirati and Pfizer. FP reports no potential conflicts of interests. ACJvA reports institutional fees as an advisory board member for 4SC, Amgen, BMS, Merck–Pfizer, MSD–Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Provectus, Sanofi and Sirius Medical; institutional research grants from Amgen and Merck–Pfizer. ABe reports personal fees as an invited speaker for Amgen and HRA; personal fees as an advisory board member for Amgen, Astellas, Ipsen and Janssen; institutional funding from Astellas and Janssen; non-financial interests for receipt of product samples from Novartis and Sanofi.

Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of B-cell lymphoma that is currently incurable. Pirtobrutinib shows promising response rates in heavily pretreated MCL patients according to the approval study, but the real-world data are scarce., Methods: In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety profile of pirtobrutinib in 10 relapsed/refractory MCL patients from compassionate use program (CUP)., Results: On average, the patients underwent three lines of systemic therapy prior to pirtobrutinib and were predominantly BTKi exposed (9/10). The best overall response rate (BORR) was 67%. In a median follow-up of 8.6 months, the mean duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were not reached. No new safety signals were documented., Conclusions: In summary, pirtobrutinib represented a safe and effective treatment option in a small real-world population., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There is a lack of consensus on the definition of upfront resectability and use of perioperative systemic therapy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This survey aimed to summarize the current treatment strategies for upfront resectable CRLM throughout Europe., Methods: A survey was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association to gain insight into the current views on resectability and the use of systemic therapy for upfront resectable CRLM., Results: The survey was completed by 87 surgeons from 24 countries. The resectability of CRLM is mostly based on the volume of the future liver remnant, while considering tumor biology. Thermal ablation was considered as an acceptable adjunct to resection in parenchymal-sparing CRLM surgery by 77 % of the respondents. A total of 40.2 % of the respondents preferred standard perioperative systemic therapy and 24.1 % preferred standard upfront local treatment., Conclusion: Among the participating European hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeons, there is a high degree of consensus on the definition of CRLM resectability. However, there is much variety in the use of adjunctive thermal ablation. Major variations persist in the use of perioperative systemic therapy in cases of upfront resectable CRLM, stressing the need for further evidence and a consensus., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This study investigates the views of contemporary Muslim jurists about withdrawing treatment of the terminally ill. Its aim is threefold. Firstly, it analyses jurists' views concerning core themes within the process of withdrawing treatment. Secondly, it provides insight into fatwas about withdrawing treatment. Thirdly, it compares these views with current medical standards in Europe and the Atlantic world on withdrawing treatment. The data consisted of six papers by Muslim jurists presented at the conference of the Islamic Fiqh Council in 2015. We conducted a directed content analysis (DCA) through a predetermined framework and compiled an overview of all previous fatwas referred to in the papers, which are also analysed. The results show that the general consensus is that if health cannot be restored, treatment may be withdrawn at the request of the patient and/or his family or on the initiative of the doctor. The accompanying fatwa emphasizes the importance of life-prolonging treatment if this does not harm the patient. It becomes apparent in the fatwa that the doctor has the monopoly in decision-making, which is inconsistent with current medical standards in Europe. Managing disclosure in view of the importance of maintaining the hope of Muslim patients may challenge the doctor's obligation to share a diagnosis with them., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Through the introduction of tumor agnostic therapies, people with metastatic cancer and their treating physicians are facing new treatment choices that have differing side effect and efficacy profiles from conventional chemotherapy., Objective: The present study undertakes a scoping review of research into the experiences of people with advanced or metastatic cancer across various solid tumor types with the goal of developing a tumor-agnostic conceptual model., Design: Automated queries on three internet search engines were performed to identify qualitative interview studies that focused on people with metastatic cancer. No limits were imposed for dates nor location of studies., Results: Of the 173 hits generated from the searches, 25 peer-reviewed papers were selected for the review with dates that ranged from 2007 to 2022. All papers originated from the USA, Europe, Australia, or Japan. Three major themes emerged that formed the basis for the tumor-agnostic conceptual model: symptoms, loss of autonomy, and adaptation/coping., Conclusions: The explication of the interplay between the physical and emotional symptoms experienced by those with advanced and metastatic cancer using a multi-tumor approach provides the potential to make generalizations about the needs of this population. An opportunity exists to potentially address these needs through matching patient needs and preferences with the characteristics of novel therapeutics., Implications for Cancer Survivors: In the era of tumor agnostic therapies, the elicitation of patient preferences across the spectrum of anatomical origins has the potential to enhance shared decision making in the setting of metastatic disease., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the "UNCAN.eu" initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45-69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

Background: Studies have shown improved survival among individuals with cancer with higher levels of social support. Few studies have investigated social support and overall survival (OS) in individuals with advanced prostate cancer in an international cohort. We investigated the associations of marital status and living arrangements with OS among individuals with advanced prostate cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN)., Methods: IRONMAN is enrolling participants diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, mHSPC; castration-resistant prostate cancer, CRPC) from 16 countries. Participants in this analysis were recruited between July 2017 and January 2023. Adjusting for demographics and tumor characteristics, the associations were estimated using Cox regression and stratified by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC), age (<70, ≥70 years), and continent of enrollment (North America, Europe, Other)., Results: We included 2,119 participants with advanced prostate cancer, of whom 427 died during up to 5 years of follow-up (median 6 months). Two-thirds had mHSPC. Most were married/in a civil partnership (79%) and 6% were widowed. Very few married participants were living alone (1%), while most unmarried participants were living alone (70%). Married participants had better OS than unmarried participants [adjusted HR: 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.02]. Widowed participants had the worst survival compared with married individuals (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.22-2.94)., Conclusions: Among those with advanced prostate cancer, unmarried and widowed participants had worse OS compared with married participants., Impact: This research highlighted the importance of social support in OS within this vulnerable population., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

In the past decade, there have been a record number of oncology therapy approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Besides the EMA's conditional marketing authorisation programme and the FDA's Accelerated Approval Program, we observe a tendency towards fast approval for exploratory studies with non-randomised, uncontrolled designs and surrogate endpoints. This issue raises concerns about the robustness and effectiveness of accepted treatments, leaving patients and health-care professionals in a state of uncertainty. A substantial number of accelerated approvals have recently been withdrawn in the USA, with some still authorised in Europe, emphasising discrepancies in regulatory standards that affect both patients and society as a whole. We highlight examples of drugs, authorised on the basis of surrogate endpoints, that were later withdrawn due to an absence of overall survival benefit. Our findings address the challenges and consequences of accelerated approval pathways in oncology. In conclusion, this Policy Review calls for regulatory bodies to better align their procedures and insist on robust evidence, preferably through unbiased randomised controlled trials. Drug approval processes should prioritise patient benefit, overall survival, and quality of life to minimise risks and uncertainties for patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LT is guest lecturer on the Institue for Pharmacy Practive and Policy (SIR) Pharma course. HW has received support from Merck Sharp & Dohme. GSS has received institutional research support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Agendia, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Biovica and Seagen. GS is a member of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. SWA has received institutional funding from the EU Cancer Mission (grant number 101104269) and support from Nordic Precision Medicine Forum. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: An increasing proportion of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases in Europe are detected by screening with faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Previous studies showed that population screening with FIT leads to a decrease in CRC incidence and to detection at an earlier stage. However, approximately twenty percent of patients with CRC without metastases at initial diagnosis still develop metachronous metastases. We investigated the association between detection mode of the primary tumor and overall survival (OS) after metachronous metastasis in patients with CRC., Methods: Nationwide registry-based data was obtained of 794 patients who developed metachronous metastases after being diagnosed with stage I-III CRC between January and June 2015. With multivariable Cox PH regression modelling, we analyzed the (causal) association between detection mode of the primary tumor (FIT screen-detected versus non-screen-detected) and OS after metachronous metastasis while adjusting for potential confounders., Results: Median OS and five-year OS after metachronous metastasis were significantly higher for patients with screen-detected (n = 152) vs. non-screen-detected primary tumors (n = 642): 38.3 vs. 19.2 months, and 35.4% vs. 18.8%, respectively, p < 0.0001). After adjustment for potential confounders, the association between detection mode and OS after metachronous metastasis remained significant (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.56-0.89])., Conclusions: Screen-detection of the primary tumor was independently associated with longer OS after metachronous metastasis. This may support the clinical utility of the population screening program and it shows the prognostic value of detection mode of the primary tumor once metachronous metastasis is diagnosed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest GRV reports research grants/funding paid to her institution by Servier, BMS, Bayer, Merck, PGDx, Delfi Diagnostics, Lilly, Pierre Fabre and Sirtex. GRV reports travel/accommodation fees from Servier. CP reports an advisory role for Nordic Pharma. MK reports personal travel/accommodation fees from Congress Care-Dutch oncology society (NVMO). MK reports research grants/funding paid to her institution by Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Merck-Serono, Nordic Pharma, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, and Sanofi-Aventis. MK reports honoraria paid to her institution by BMS, Nordic Pharma, and Servier. PH reports honoraria paid to her institution by Servier. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To investigate changes in treatment patterns in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (EU5) between 2018 and 2021. Methods: Cross-sectional data from an oncology database were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Of 5832 eligible patients, 88.4% had stage IV disease at diagnosis. Among patients receiving first-line treatment, 91.8% (1079 /1176) received the platinum-etoposide (PE) combination in 2018 which decreased to 42.3% (509/1203) by 2021. Usage of the PE-atezolizumab combination increased from 0 to 41.2% during the same timeframe. Topotecan monotherapy remained the most widely used second-line treatment regardless of patients' platinum sensitivity. Conclusion: The first-line standard of care for ES-SCLC has evolved in EU5 with the PE-atezolizumab/durvalumab combination gradually superseding PE usage.

Purpose: To analyze the current practice of regional hyperthermia (RHT) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) at 12 European centers to provide an overview, find consensuses and identify controversies necessary for future guidelines and clinical trials., Methods: In this cross-sectional survey study, a 27-item questionnaire assessing clinical subjects and procedural details on RHT for STS was distributed to 12 European cancer centers for RHT., Results: We have identified seven controversies and five consensus points. Of 12 centers, 6 offer both, RHT with chemotherapy (CTX) or with radiotherapy (RT). Two centers only offer RHT with CTX and four centers only offer RHT with RT. All 12 centers apply RHT for localized, high-risk STS of the extremities, trunk wall and retroperitoneum. However, eight centers also use RHT in metastatic STS, five in palliative STS, eight for superficial STS and six for low-grade STS. Pretherapeutic imaging for RHT treatment planning is used by 10 centers, 9 centers set 40-43 °C as the intratumoral target temperature, and all centers use skin detectors or probes in body orifices for thermometry., Discussion: There is disagreement regarding the integration of RHT in contemporary interdisciplinary care of STS patients. Many clinical controversies exist that require a standardized consensus guideline and innovative study ideas. At the same time, our data has shown that existing guidelines and decades of experience with the technique of RHT have mostly standardized procedural aspects., Conclusions: The provided results may serve as a basis for future guidelines and inform future clinical trials for RHT in STS patients.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is approved for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Results on T-DXd treatment in HER2-low mBC have so far been limited to clinical trials. DESTINY-Breast Respond HER2-low Europe (NCT05945732) is a multi-center, multi-country, observational, prospective, non-interventional study planning to enroll 1350 patients from 216 sites receiving T-DXd or conventional chemotherapy as their routine clinical care for advanced stage breast cancer in 12 European countries. This non-interventional study will provide real-world insight into T-DXd treatment for HER2-low mBC with data on effectiveness, safety and tolerability, patient-reported outcomes, treatment patterns, geriatric health status and HER2 testing. This will be beneficial for improving guidance to maximize patient treatment benefit.

BACKGROUNDSlow-flow vascular malformations frequently harbor activating mutations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR cascade. Phase II trials pinpointed sirolimus effectiveness as a drug therapy. Efficacy and safety of sirolimus thus need to be evaluated in large prospective phase III trials.METHODSThe Vascular Anomaly-Sirolimus-Europe (VASE) trial, initiated in 2016, is a large multicentric prospective phase III trial (EudraCT 2015-001703-32), which evaluates efficacy and safety of sirolimus for 2 years in pediatric and adult patients with symptomatic slow-flow vascular malformations. In this interim analysis, we studied all patients enrolled up to October 2021 who received sirolimus for 12 or more months or who prematurely stopped the treatment.RESULTSThirty-one pediatric and 101 adult patients were included in this analysis; 107 completed 12 or more months of sirolimus, including 61 who were treated for the whole 2-year period. Sirolimus resulted in a clinical improvement in 85% of patients. The efficacy appeared within the first month for the majority of them. Grade 3-4 adverse events were observed in 24 (18%) patients; all resolved after treatment interruption/arrest. Sirolimus increased feasibility of surgery or sclerotherapy in 20 (15%) patients initially deemed unsuitable for intervention. Among the 61 patients who completed the 2-year treatment, 33 (54%) reported a recurrence of symptoms after a median follow-up of 13 months after sirolimus arrest. While there was no difference in efficacy, clinical improvement was faster but subsided more rapidly in PIK3CA-mutated (n = 24) compared with TIE2-mutated (n = 19) patients.CONCLUSIONSirolimus has a high efficacy and good tolerance in treatment of slow-flow vascular malformations in children and adults.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT02638389 and EudraCT 2015-001703-32.FUNDINGThe Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS grants T.0247.19, P.C005.22, T.0146.16, and P.C013.20), the Fund Generet managed by the King Baudouin Foundation (grant 2018-J1810250-211305), the Walloon Region through the FRFS-WELBIO strategic research programme (WELBIO-CR-2019C-06), the MSCA-ITN network V.A. Cure no. 814316, the Leducq Foundation Networks of Excellence Program grant "ReVAMP" (LFCR grant 21CVD03), the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 874708 (Theralymph), the Swiss National Science Foundation under the Sinergia project no. CRSII5&#95;193694, and a Pierre M. fellowship.

Objective: To evaluate outcomes of European cross-border multidisciplinary tumor boards in terms of participation, adherence to treatment recommendations, and access to novel treatment strategies., Methods: The European reference network for rare gynecological tumors (EURACAN G2 domain) aims to improve the diagnosis, management, and treatment of patients with these cancers. Cross-border multidisciplinary tumor boards were initiated to facilitate intercollegiate clinical discussions across Europe and increase patients' access to specialist treatment recommendations and clinical trials. All G2 healthcare providers were invited to participate in monthly multidisciplinary meetings. Patient data were collected using a standardized form and case summaries were distributed before each meeting. After each tumor board, a meeting summary with treatment recommendations was sent to all participants and the project manager at the coordinating center. The multidisciplinary tumor board format and outcomes were regularly discussed at G2 domain meetings. Anonymized clinical data and treatment recommendations were registered in a prospective database. For this report, clinical data were collected between November 2017 and December 2020 and follow-up data retrieved until May 2021., Results: During the 3-year period, 31 multidisciplinary tumor boards were held with participants from 10 countries and 20 centers. 91 individual patients were discussed between one and six times for a total of 109 case discussions. Follow-up data were retrieved from 64 patients and 80 case discussions. Adherence to treatment recommendations was 99%. Multidisciplinary tumor board recommendations resulted in 11 patients getting access to off-label treatment and one patient being enrolled in a clinical trial in another European country. 14/91 patients were recommended for surveillance only when additional treatment had been considered locally., Conclusion: Cross-border multidisciplinary tumor boards enable networking and clinical collaboration between healthcare professionals in different countries. Surveillance strategies, off-label drug use, and increased participation in clinical trials are possible benefits to patients with rare gynecological tumors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The long-standing underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in medicine is well-known, but poorly documented globally. There is some evidence of the gender gap in academia, medical society leadership, or specific problems in some specialties. However, there are no investigations analyzing all medical specialties together and reporting the glass ceiling from a 360º perspective that includes positions in academia, research, professional organizations, and clinical activity. Additionally, the majority of studies have a US perspective, and we wonder if the perspective of a European country might be different. The WOmen in MEDicine in Spain (WOMEDS) project ( https://womeds.es ) aims to describe and characterize, in a systematic and detailed way, the gender bias in the medical profession in Spain in order to monitor its evolution over time and contribute to prioritizing gender policies., Methods: We retrieved data for the calendar years 2019-2021 from several sources and selected surveys. We built four groups of indicators to describe leadership positions in the medical profession: (i) leadership in healthcare according to specialty and region; (ii) leadership in scientific and professional bodies; (iii) academic career; and (iv) leadership in clinical research activity. As a summary measure, we reported the women ratios, calculated as the percentage of women in specific top positions divided by the percentage of women in the relevant population., Results: We found gender inequity in leadership positions in all four settings. During the observed period, only 27.6% of the heads of departments in hospitals were women compared to 61.1% of women in medical staff. Ten of the 46 medical societies grouped in the Spanish Federation of Medical Societies (FACME) (21.7%) had a women president at some point during the study period, and only 4 annual congresses had ratios of women speakers higher than 1. Women were over-represented in the lower positions and underrepresented in the top academic ones. Only 26% and 27%, respectively, of the heads of departments and deans were women. The applications for public funding for research projects are led by women only in 45% of the cases, and the budget granted to women in public calls was 24.3% lower than that of men., Conclusion: In all the areas analyzed, the leadership positions are still mostly occupied by men despite the feminization of medicine in Spain. The severe gender inequity found calls for urgent interventions within a defined time horizon. Such measures must concern all levels, from national or regional regulation to changes in organizational culture or incentives in specific organizations., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Leveraging real-world data (RWD) for drug access is necessary to overcome a key challenge of modern precision oncology: tackling numerous low-prevalence oncogenic mutations across cancers. Withholding a potentially active medication in patients with rare mutations for the sake of control chemotherapy or "best" supportive care is neither practicable nor ethically justifiable anymore, particularly as RWD could meanwhile be used instead, according to scientific principles outlined by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other stakeholders. However, practical implementation varies, with occasionally opposite recommendations based on the same evidence in different countries. In the face of growing need for precision drugs, more transparency of evaluation, a priori availability of guidance for the academia and industry, as well as a harmonized framework for health technology assessment across the European Union (EU) are imperative. These could in turn trigger infrastructural changes in national and pan-European registries, cancer management guidelines (e.g., frequency of routine radiologic restaging, inclusion of patient-reported outcomes), and the health data space, to ensure conformity with declared standards and facilitate extraction of RWD sets (including patient-level data) suitable for approval and pricing with minimal effort. For an EU-wide unification of precision cancer medicine, collective negotiation of drug supply contracts and funding solidarity would additionally be required to handle the financial burden. According to experience from pivotal European programs, off-label use could potentially also be harmonized across EU-states to accelerate availability of novel drugs, streamline collection of valuable RWD, and mitigate related costs through wider partnerships with pharmaceutical companies., (© 2023 The Authors. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: There is a growing interest in understanding the impact of duty hours and resting times on training outcomes and the well-being of resident physicians. However, to this date no state-wide analysis exists in any European country., Objectives: Our aim is to describe the shift work scheduling and to detail the degree of compliance with the Spanish legislation and the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) of Spanish resident physicians, focusing on territorial and specialty distribution., Material and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional analytical study was designed through an online survey adapted from the existing literature., Results: Out of the 2035 surveyed resident physicians undergoing PGT in Spain, 80.49% exceeded the 48 h per week limit set by the EWTD and 13% of them did not rest after a 24-h on-call shift. The mean number of on-call shifts in the last 3 months was 15.03, with the highest mean reported in Asturias, La Rioja, and Extremadura. 51.6% of respondents had a day-off after a Saturday on-call shift. Significant differences are observed by region and type of specialty., Conclusion: Resident physicians in Spain greatly exceed the established 48 h/week EWTD limit. Likewise, non-compliance with labor regulations regarding mandatory rest after on-call duty and minimum weekly rest periods are observed., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The aim of this study was to assess current European practices in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in 2021., Methods: A 58-question electronic survey was distributed anonymously to the members of six European learned societies. Initial diagnostic workup and staging, pathological data, surgical data, treatments and follow-up strategies were assessed., Results: A total of 171 participants from 17 European countries responded to emailed surveys. Most participants were experienced practitioners (superior than 15 years of experience) specializing in gynecology-obstetrics (29.8%), surgical oncology (25.1%), and oncogynecology (21.6%). According to most (64.8%) participants, less than 50% of patients were eligible for primary debulking surgery. Variations in the rate of primary debulking surgery depending on the country of origin of the practitioners were observed in this study. The LION study criteria were applied in 70.4% of cases during PDS and 27.1% after chemotherapy. In cases of BRCA1-2 mutations, olaparib was given by 75.0-84.8% of respondents, whereas niraparib was given in cases of BRCA wild-type diseases., Conclusions: This study sheds light on current practices and attitudes regarding the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in Europe in 2021., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

The systematic identification of tumour vulnerabilities through perturbational experiments on cancer models, including genome editing and drug screens, is playing a crucial role in combating cancer. This collective effort is known as the Cancer Dependency Map (DepMap). The 1st European Cancer Dependency Map Symposium (EuroDepMap), held in Milan last May, featured talks, a roundtable discussion, and a poster session, showcasing the latest discoveries and future challenges related to the DepMap. The symposium aimed to facilitate interactions among participants across Europe, encourage idea exchange with leading experts, and present their work and future projects. Importantly, it sparked discussions on future endeavours, such as screening more complex cancer models and accounting for tumour evolution., (© 2023 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

Background: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer., Methods: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%)., Results: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement)., Conclusion: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. van Laarhoven reports grants or advisory/speaker role from: Astellas, BMS, Dragonfly, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Nordic Pharma, Servier; research funding or medical supply from: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Nordic Pharma, Philips, Roche, Servier; and has received unrestricted research funding (non-commercial) from: Dutch Cancer Society, NWO/ZonMw, European Research Council, MaagLeverDarm Stichting. Dr. Muijs reports institutional grants from: Elekta, IBA, RaySearch, Siemens, Mirada, Bergoz Instrumentation and Medical Data Works, KWF, all outside the submitted work. Dr. van Hillegersberg has a consulting and advisory role at Intuitive Surgical. Dr. de Manzoni reports personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gani reports travel grants from Elekta and departmental research cooperation, outside the submitted work. Dr. Smyth reports personal fees/grants from: Astra Zeneca, Beigene, BMS, Amal Therapeutics, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zymeworks, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Haj Mohammad reports consulation fees from: Merck, BMS, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, and research funding from Servier, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Adenis reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, personal fees and non-fianciel support from MSD, personal fees from: BMS, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, non-financial support from Servier, grants from Sanofi, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Lordick reports grants from: BMS and Gilead, personal fees from: Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, Incyte, Merck, MSD, Roche, Servier, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Slingerland reports an advisory role at BMS and Lilly. Dr. van Berge Henegouwen received researcher-initiated grant from Stryker and is consultant for Alesi Surgical, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, Braun and Mylan. Dr Nilsson reports advisory roles for BMS and Medtronic. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The main cause for fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity is deficiency of the metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended two methods for pre-treatment DPD deficiency testing in clinical practice: phenotyping using endogenous uracil concentration or genotyping for DPYD risk variant alleles. This study assessed the DPD testing implementation status in Europe before (2019) and after (2021) the release of the EMA recommendations., Methods: The survey was conducted from 16 March 2022 to 31 July 2022. An electronic form with seven closed and three open questions was e-mailed to 251 professionals with DPD testing expertise of 34 European countries. A descriptive analysis was conducted., Results: We received 79 responses (31%) from 23 countries. Following publication of the EMA recommendations, 87% and 75% of the countries reported an increase in the amount of genotype and phenotype testing, respectively. Implementation of novel local guidelines was reported by 21 responders (27%). Countries reporting reimbursement of both tests increased in 2021, and only four (18%) countries reported no coverage for any testing type. In 2019, major implementation drivers were 'retrospective assessment of fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity' (39%), and in 2021, testing was driven by 'publication of guidelines' (40%). Although the major hurdles remained the same after EMA recommendations-'lack of reimbursement' (26%; 2019 versus 15%; 2021) and 'lack of recognizing the clinical relevance by medical oncologists' (25%; 2019 versus 8%; 2021)-the percentage of specialists citing these decreased. Following EMA recommendations, 25% of responders reported no hurdles at all in the adoption of the new testing practice in the clinics., Conclusions: The EMA recommendations have supported the implementation of DPD deficiency testing in Europe. Key factors for successful implementation were test reimbursement and clear clinical guidelines. Further efforts to improve the oncologists' awareness of the clinical relevance of DPD testing in clinical practice are needed., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Individual participant data collected by the survey, after de-identification, may be provided by the corresponding author on reasonable request to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal for the purpose of e.g. meta-analysis, with the permission of the co-authors., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Cancer nursing has evolved to meet the demands of rising cancer incidence, newer and more complex treatment options, and the emergence of specialist roles supporting patients from pre-diagnosis, through treatment, survivorship and end of life care. Nurses are involved in direct and in-direct care of people at risk of, and living with and after cancer in diverse contexts. As a result, nurses are positioned to have a significant influence on the processes and outcomes of cancer care, through education, research, policy, practice and leadership. However, nursing and cancer care face challenges, arising from workforce shortages, under-investment in services and under-representation in decision-making. This paper discusses the evolution of cancer nursing across education, policy, research, profession and practice, and sets an agenda for innovation and disruption across these domains to ensure sustainability of cancer care services and care for people living with and after cancer. We argue for the continued advancement of cancer nursing with critical focus on identifying and addressing inequities in role recognition and access to specialist cancer nursing education throughout Europe. Partnership, exchange of learning, and co-design will be central to progressing education, evidence and policy to support future growth in the cancer nursing workforce and embed cancer nurses in research and policy setting at local, national and international levels., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest AD, JdM, WO and VS are Board Member of the European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS), AD is chair of the Research Working Group of EONS, HU is a chair of the Advocacy Working Group of EONS. LS is the former President of EONS., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of melanoma and other cancers. However, no reliable biomarker of survival or response has entered the clinic to identify those patients with melanoma who are most likely to benefit from ICIs. Glycosylation affects proteins and lipids' structure and functions. Tumours are characterized by aberrant glycosylation which may contribute to their progression and hinder an effective antitumour immune response., Methods: We aim at identifying novel glyco-markers of response and survival by leveraging the N-glycome of total serum proteins collected in 88 ICI-naive patients with advanced melanoma from two European countries. Samples were collected before and during ICI treatment., Results: We observe that responders to ICIs present with a pre-treatment N-glycome profile significantly shifted towards higher abundancy of low-branched structures containing lower abundances of antennary fucose, and that this profile is positively associated with survival and a better predictor of response than clinical variables alone., Conclusion: While changes in serum protein glycosylation have been previously implicated in a pro-metastatic melanoma behaviour, we show here that they are also associated with response to ICI, opening new avenues for the stratification of patients and the design of adjunct therapies aiming at improving immune response., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Mechanistic data indicate the benefit of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) produced by gut microbial fermentation of fiber on colorectal cancer, but direct epidemiologic evidence is limited. A recent study identified SNPs for two SCFA traits (fecal propionate and butyrate-producing microbiome pathway PWY-5022) in Europeans and showed metabolic benefits., Methods: We conducted a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis of the genetic instruments for the two SCFA traits (three SNPs for fecal propionate and nine for PWY-5022) in relation to colorectal cancer risk in three large European genetic consortia of 58,131 colorectal cancer cases and 67,347 controls. We estimated the risk of overall colorectal cancer and conducted subgroup analyses by sex, age, and anatomic subsites of colorectal cancer., Results: We did not observe strong evidence for an association of the genetic predictors for fecal propionate levels and the abundance of PWY-5022 with the risk of overall colorectal cancer, colorectal cancer by sex, or early-onset colorectal cancer (diagnosed at <50 years), with no evidence of heterogeneity or pleiotropy. When assessed by tumor subsites, we found weak evidence for an association between PWY-5022 and risk of rectal cancer (OR per 1-SD, 0.95; 95% confidence intervals, 0.91-0.99; P = 0.03) but it did not surpass multiple testing of subgroup analysis., Conclusions: Genetic instruments for fecal propionate levels and the abundance of PWY-5022 were not associated with colorectal cancer risk., Impact: Fecal propionate and PWY-5022 may not have a substantial influence on colorectal cancer risk. Future research is warranted to comprehensively investigate the effects of SCFA-producing bacteria and SCFAs on colorectal cancer risk., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)