Search

To examine the effects of body size on locomotor performance, 807 15-year-old French and 64 Qatari soccer players participated in the present study. They performed a 40-m sprint and an incremental running test to assess maximal sprinting (MSS) and aerobic speeds, respectively. French players were advanced in maturity, taller, heavier, faster and fitter than their Qatari counterparts (e. g., Cohen’s d = + 1.3 and + 0.5 for body mass and MSS). However, when adjusted for body mass (BM), Qatari players had possibly greater MSS than French players (d = + 0.2). A relative age effect was observed within both countries, with the players born in the first quarter of the year being taller, heavier and faster that those born during the fourth quarter (e. g., d = + 0.2 for MSS in French players). When directly adjusted for BM, these MSS differences remained (d = + 0.2). Finally, in both countries, players selected in National teams were taller, heavier, faster and fitter than their non-selected counterparts (e. g., d = + 0.6 for MSS in French players), even after adjustments for body size (d = + 0.5). Differences in locomotor performances between players with different phenotypes are likely mediated by differences in body size. However, when considering more homogeneous player groups, body dimensions are unlikely to substantially explain the superior locomotor performances of older and/or international players. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Bosquet, L, Bretonneau, Q, Pla, R, Vachon, A, and Morales-Artacho, A. Peaking for the Olympic games: an integrated approach developed with the French national swimming team for Paris 2024. J Strength Cond Res 38(11): 1981-1986, 2024-In energy-dominant disciplines, such as swimming, performance depends largely on the difference between the levels of fatigue and physical fitness: the greater this difference, the higher the probability of reaching a peak performance. The main challenge before major events such as the Olympic games is therefore in identifying the most efficient strategies to reduce the fatigue accumulated during previous mesocycles, while maintaining, or even improving the level of physical fitness. The most widespread strategy relies in the manipulation of training load parameters. This is the taper period, which has been shown to improve performance by ≈2% in elite athletes. However, tapering may not be sufficient for the most tired athletes. In this case, the strategy commonly used consists in combining the manipulation of training load with the implementation of recovery methods. Regardless of the strategy, we perceive that the challenge for athletes, coaches, and sport scientists is to estimate the level of cumulative fatigue as precisely as possible to individualize the recommendations. This relies not only on the identification of valid markers but also on the ability to interpret their variations over time. The objective of this article is to present the method initially developed in a European champion professional rugby team and now implemented with the French swimming team as part of its preparation for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games. More specifically, this article provides some details about the conception of the monitoring dashboard, and the method used to interpret changes over time to categorize the level of fatigue., (Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association.)

Introduction: In France, 40% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer are ≥70 years old, but these are under-represented in clinical trials. Using data from the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) platform on Lung Cancer (LC), the objective is to provide an overview of the management and the prognosis of older patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (AM-NSCLC) in a real-world context., Materials and Methods: From the ESME-LC database, we selected patients with AM-NSCLC (stage IIIB, IIIC, and IV), diagnosed between 2015 and 2019, and who received first-line systemic treatment. Demographics, tumour characteristics, and treatment received were described in patients ≥70, and compared to younger ones. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the multivariable Cox model., Results: Among 10,002 patients with AM-NSCLC, the median age was 64 years, with 2,754 (27.5%) aged ≥70. In comparison with patients <70, older patients were more often male, with worse performance status and more comorbidities, but they were less underweight and more often non-smokers. The proportion of EGFR mutated non-squamous NSCLC was higher in older patients (25.0% vs 12.8%, p < 0.001), particularly among smokers and former smokers (12.7% vs 7.3%, p < 0.001). Among patients ≥70, 76.6% received first-line chemotherapy (including 67.0% treated with a platinum-based doublet), 15.0% received only targeted therapy, and 11.0% received immunotherapy (alone or in combination). Median first-line rwPFS was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = [4.8;5.4]) for patients ≥70 and 4.6 months (95%CI = [4.4;4.8]) for patients <70, but age was not associated with rwPFS in multivariable analysis. Median OS was 14.8 months (95%CI = [13.9;16.1]) for patients ≥70 and 16.7 months (95%CI = [15.9;17.5]) for patients <70, with a significant effect of age in multivariable analysis for patients treated with chemotherapy and/or with targeted therapy, but not for patients treated with immunotherapy (alone or in combination with chemotherapy)., Discussion: In this real-world cohort of patients with AM-NSCLC, age was not associated with first-line rwPFS regardless of treatment received, nor with OS for patients receiving immunotherapy. However, OS was significantly shorter for patients aged ≥70 treated with chemotherapy or with targeted therapy alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Mathilde Cabart reports non-financial support from Janssen, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Loïc Mourey reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. David Pasquier has nothing to disclose. Sophie Schneider has nothing to disclose. Hervé Léna reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from Lilly, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Nicolas Girard reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work; and Family Member employee of AstraZeneca. Christos Chouaid reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi Aventis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Viatris, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Chugai, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pierre Fabre, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Roland Schott reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, non-financial support from IPSEN, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. Sandrine Hiret reports non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Novartis, other from Sanofi, other from Astra Zeneca, other from Takeda, other from BMS, outside the submitted work. Didier Debieuvre has nothing to disclose. Xavier Quantin has nothing to disclose. Anne Madroszyk has nothing to disclose. Pascale Dubray-Longeras reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Eric Pichon reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. Anne Baranzelli has nothing to disclose. Grégoire Justeau has nothing to disclose. Maurice Pérol reports personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Lise Bosquet has nothing to disclose. Bastien Cabarrou has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The RAS/MEK signaling pathway is essential in carcinogenesis and frequently altered in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), notably by KRAS mutations (KRASm) that affect 25%-30% of non-squamous NSCLC. This study aims to explore the impact of KRASm subtypes on disease phenotype and survival outcomes., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics database for advanced or metastatic lung cancer from 2011 to 2021. Patient demographics, histology, KRASm status, treatment strategies, and outcomes were assessed., Results: Of 10 177 assessable patients for KRAS status, 17.6% had KRAS p.G12C mutation, 22.6% had KRAS non-p.G12C mutation, and 59.8% were KRASwt. KRASm patients were more often smokers (96.3%) compared with KRASwt (85.8%). A higher proportion of programmed death-ligand 1 ≥50% was found for KRASm patients: 43.5% versus 38.0% (P < 0.01). KRASm correlated with poorer outcomes. First-line median progression-free survival was shorter in the KRASm than the KRASwt cohort: 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7-4.3 months] versus 5.1 months (95% CI 4.8-5.3 months), P < 0.001. First-line overall survival was shorter for KRASm than KRASwt patients: 12.6 months (95% CI 11.6-13.6 months) versus 15.4 months (95% CI 14.6-16.2 months), P = 0.012. First-line chemoimmunotherapy offered better overall survival in KRAS p.G12C (48.8 months) compared with KRAS non-p.G12C (24.0 months) and KRASwt (22.5 months) patients. Second-line overall survival with immunotherapy was superior in the KRAS p.G12C subgroup: 12.6 months (95% CI 8.1-18.6 months) compared with 9.4 months (95% CI 8.0-11.4 months) for KRAS non-p.G12C and 9.6 months (8.4-11.0 months) for KRASwt patients., Conclusion: We highlighted distinct clinical profiles and survival outcomes according to KRASm subtypes. Notably KRAS p.G12C mutations may provide increased sensitivity to immunotherapy, suggesting potential therapeutic implications for sequencing or combination of therapies. Further research on the impact of emerging KRAS specific inhibitors are warranted in real-world cohorts., Competing Interests: Disclosure QDT received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi and meeting/travel support from Amgen and Sanofi. CC received grants or contracts, consulting fees, personal/institutional honoraria, and meeting/travel support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda. TF received personal/institutional honoraria from Janssen, Lilly, and Roche. JRM received grants or contracts from MSD, received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Edimark, Janssen, MSD, Sanofi, Roche, and Takeda and meeting/travel support from Ose-Immunotherapeutics. MP received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novocure, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from Anheart Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pharmamar and Roche. CAV received consulting fees or meeting/travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GJ received meeting/travel support from Sanofi. SH received personal/institutional honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; and meeting/travel support from Novartis and Sanofi. AS received consulting fees from Exafield and Guidepoint; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Amgen and Roche; and is a board member of the SFFPO. EP received personal/institutional honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; meeting/travel support from Takeda and Amgen; and participated in an advisory board for Takeda. NG declared research grants/support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merk Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sivan; consultative services for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Ipsen Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Takeda; participation on a data safety monitoring board for Hoffmann-La Roche; and employment of a family member with AstraZeneca. PDR received meeting/travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Summit Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda; and participated in an advisory board for Sanofi and Takeda. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the second most common cancer that metastasizes to the brain. Particularly up to half of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may develop brain metastases over the course of the disease. Nevertheless, little is known about the prevalence and the outcome of brain and leptomeningeal metastases (BLMM) in HER2-low BC. We compared the cumulative incidence of BLMM and associated outcomes among patients with HER2-low, HER2-negative (HER2-) and HER2+ mBC., Patients and Methods: This cohort study was conducted from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) mBC database and included patients treated for mBC between 2012 and 2020 across 18 French comprehensive cancer centers and with known HER2 and hormone receptor (HR) status. The cumulative incidence of BLMM after metastatic diagnosis was estimated using a competing risk methodology with death defined as a competing event., Results: 19 585 patients were included with 6118 (31.2%), 9943 (50.8%) and 3524 (18.0%) being HER2-low, HER2- and HER2+ mBC, respectively. After a median follow-up of 48.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 47.7-49.3 months], BLMM were reported in 4727 patients: 1192 (25.2%) were diagnosed with BLMM at first metastatic diagnosis and 3535 (74.8%) after metastatic diagnosis. Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, histological grade, metastases-free interval and HR status showed that the risk of BLMM at metastatic diagnosis was similar in patients with HER2- compared to HER2-low mBC [odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) 1.00 (0.86-1.17)] and higher in those with HER2+ compared to HER2-low [OR (95% CI) 2.23 (1.87-2.66)]. Similar results were found after metastatic diagnosis; the risk of BLMM was similar in HER2- compared to HER2-low [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) (95% CI) 1.07 (0.98-1.16)] and higher in the HER2+ group [sHR (95% CI) 1.56 (1.41-1.73)]., Conclusions: The prevalence and evolution of BLMM in HER2-low mBC are similar to those in patients with HER2- tumors. In contrast to patients with HER2+ mBC, the prognosis of BLMM remains dismal in this population., Competing Interests: Disclosure WJ declares grants: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca, Eisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen; support for attending meetings and/or travel: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chugai Pharma, Pfizer, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Glaxo Smithkline, Roche, Lilly France, Sanofi Aventis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board : AstraZeneca, Eisai, BMS, Lilly France, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Gilead. MA declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Gilead, Pfizer, Novartis; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer. FLD declares consulting fees: Novartis, Gilead; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Amgen, Daiichi, Lilly, Novartis, Seagen, AZ; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: Daiichi, Lilly, Seagen, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Exact Sciences; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services : Lilly. TF declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Roche, Jansen, Lilly. BP received fees as advisor/consultant from Pierre Fabre (self), Daiichi Sankyo (self), Merck Sharp & Dohme (institution), Seattle Genetics (institution), Eli Lilly (institution) and Novartis (institution); funding to institution for research support from Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca; and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Gilead. JSF declares consulting fees: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Exact Science, MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD; support for attending meetings and/or travel: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, MSD. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major therapeutic issue in cancer patients. Advances in this field and heterogeneities in clinical practices prompted us to establish guidelines in the management of VTE in cancer patients according to the SOR (Standards, Options and Recommendations) methodology. A literature review of the studies published on this topic between 1999 and 2007 was performed. The guidelines were developed from the analysis of 38 out of 418 publications selected. They were peer-reviewed by 65 independent experts. The treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, including those with intracranial malignancies, should be based on low-molecular-weight heparins administered at therapeutic doses for at least 3 months. In the event of recurrent VTE, pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic failure or contra-indication to anticoagulant treatment, the indications and usages of vena cava filters and thrombolytic drugs should be the same as in non-cancer patients.

The "Standards, Options: Recommendations" (SOR) project has been undertaken by the French National Federation of Cancer Centers (FNCLCC) and is now part of the French National Cancer Institute. The project involves the development and updating of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) in oncology. In order to answer questions related to venous thromboembolic events (VTE) treatment and to central venous catheter thrombosis (CVCT) management in cancer patients, the SOR elaborated national guidelines, here presented in a short report. It results of a collaborative work with members from three learned societies (<< Société nationale française de médecine interne >> : SNFMI, << Société française de médecine vasculaire >> : SFMV and << Société française d'anesthésie-réanimation >> : SFAR).

The <> (SOR) project has been undertaken by the French National Federation of Cancer Centers (FNCLCC) is now part of the French National Cancer Institute. The project involves the development and updating of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) in oncology. In order to answer questions related to venous thromboembolic events (VTE) treatment and to central venous catheter thrombosis (CVCT) management in cancer patients, the SOR elaborated national guidelines, here presented in a short report. It results of a collaborative work with members from three learned societies ("société nationale française de médicine interne": SNFMI, "société française de médicine vasculaire": SFMV and "société française d'anesthésie-réanimation": SFAR).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of twelve weeks of aerobic training and eight weeks of training cessation on Heart Rate Variability (HRV). Ten healthy young men (Age: 21.7 +/- 2.2 years; Height: 179.2 +/- 6.9 cm; Mass 72.7 +/- 11.1 kg) completed an incremental test and a 60 degrees tilt test during which R-R intervals were recorded before (T0) and after (T12) 12 weeks of intensive training, and after 2, 4 and 8 weeks of training cessation (D2, D4 and D8, respectively). HRV was computed in time and frequency domains. Training resulted in a significant increase in estimated VO2max after T12 (p < 0.01), followed by a significant decrease during D2 and D8 (p < 0.05). Total power (LF + HF) and low frequency power (LF) increased significantly in the supine position after the training period (p < 0.05) and decreased moderately after D2 (p > 0.05) to stabilize afterwards. LF + HF and LF were not different from T0 at D8 (p > 0.05). It was concluded that eight weeks of training cessation allow to reverse the cardiovascular autonomic adaptations induced by 12 weeks of intensive training in healthy young men.

Context: "The Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French regional cancer centers, and specialists from French Public Universities, General Hospitals and Private Clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients., Objectives: To elaborate clinical practice guidelines for patients with stomach adenocarcinoma. These recommendations cover the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of these tumors., Methods: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. The Standards, Options and Recommendations are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement., Results: Adjuvant radiation therapy alone is not a standard treatment for patients with stomach adenocarcinoma. Adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is not a standard treatment for patients with stage II or III stomach adenocarcinoma R0, with Dl or D2 lymphadenectomy who have undergone surgery. Following surgical resection, adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy should be proposed to patients without denutrition with a lymphadenectomy < Dl (fewer than 15 lymph nodes examined) and those with T3 and/or N+ tumours following the protocol used in the MacDonald trials (SWOG-9008) (Level of evidence B1). Adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy can be administered to patients without denutrition with DI or D2 lymphadenectomy and with involvement of regional lymph nodes (N2 or N3).