Search

Background: The use of first-line poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is increasing in advanced ovarian cancer. Understanding the efficacy of first subsequent therapy (FST) in patients experiencing disease progression in the first-line setting is important to optimize postprogression treatments. We evaluated the efficacy of FST in patients from PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) who received first-line olaparib maintenance., Patients and Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy following disease progression by assessing time from FST to second subsequent therapy (SST) according to whether progression occurred during versus after first-line olaparib maintenance and FST type. A multivariate Cox model was used in the olaparib plus bevacizumab arm to identify prognostic factors influencing the efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy., Results: Of 806 randomized patients, 544 (67.5%) progressed and received subsequent chemotherapy. The median time from FST to SST was shorter in patients in the olaparib plus bevacizumab arm who progressed during first-line olaparib maintenance (6.1 months) than in those who progressed after first-line olaparib maintenance (11.4 months). Multivariate analysis indicated that progression after (versus during) first-line olaparib maintenance influenced time from FST to SST (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.84; P = 0.0011) independently of platinum-free interval or clinical risk. Among patients who progressed and received platinum-based chemotherapy with a PARP inhibitor as FST, the efficacy of subsequent therapies was also dependent on whether progression occurred during versus after first-line olaparib maintenance., Conclusions: These results suggest that the timing of disease progression relative to first-line olaparib maintenance may impact the efficacy of subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy. Although results should be interpreted with caution, across all subgroups, including patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy with PARP inhibitor rechallenge as FST, the median time from FST to SST was longer if progression occurred after versus during first-line olaparib maintenance., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The MOVIE phase I/II trial (NCT03518606) evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of durvalumab and tremelimumab combined with metronomic oral vinorelbine in patients with advanced tumors. We present the results of the recurrent advanced cervical cancer cohort., Methods: Patients received tremelimumab (intravenously, 75 mg, every four weeks (Q4W); four cycles max) plus durvalumab (intravenously, 1,500 mg, Q4W; 26 cycles max) and metronomic oral vinorelbine (40 mg, every three weeks (3QW)) until disease progression. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR) based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1, which was analyzed using a Bayesian approach RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were enrolled and treated in the cervical cancer cohort. The median number of previous lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease was 2 (0-6), with all (100%) and 12 (38.7%) patients pretreated with cisplatin and bevacizumab, respectively. At the data cut-off, the median follow-up duration was 12.8 (Q1-Q3, 6.1-34.6) months. The CBR was 53.1% (95% CI, 36.0% to 69.8%), using a non-informative prior distribution (beta(1, 1)). The overall response rate was 41.9%, five patients achieved a complete response (16.1%), and eight patients (25.8%) had a partial response irrespective of histological subtype or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Of the 31 patients, 28 (90.3%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), 13 (41.9%) reported grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (AEs), and 13 (41.9%) reported grade ≥3 chemotherapy-related AEs. The definitive discontinuation rate due to TRAEs was 16.1%., Conclusions: Dual checkpoint blockade of PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 combined with metronomic oral vinorelbine demonstrated meaningful and durable clinical activity in patients with previously treated advanced cervical cancer. Toxicity was significant but manageable., Competing Interests: Competing interests: J-SF reported consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Esai, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daichi Sankyon and Seagen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Esai, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daichi Sankyon and Seagen; support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, GSK, Esai, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daichi Sankyon and Seagen; and participant on advisory board from AstraZeneca, GSK, Esai, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daichi Sankyon and Seagen outside the submitted work. EB reported consulting fees from Egle Tx; honoraria from Eisai, MSD, Sandoz and Amgen; and support for attending meetings from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Amgen, Sandoz, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche outside the submitted work. EC reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Ipsen, BMS, MSD and Janssen; and support for attending meeting from Novartis, AstraZeneca and Janssen outside the submitted work. TDLMR reported grants from MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Seagen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis oncology, Pfizer, Gilead, Seagen and Sanofi; honoraria from GSK and MSD; support for attending meetings from Pfizer, Gilead and Eisai; and participant on advisory board from MSD outside the submitted work. ES-B reported grants from Merck Serono and AstraZeneca; honoraria from Merck Serono and MSD; support for attending meetings from Merck Serono, MSD and Novartis outside the submitted work. RS reported grants from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from DSK, Eisai and MSD; honoraria from GSK, Pharmaand, MSD, Eisai, Seattle Genetics and Novartis; and support for attending meetings from Eisai, Novartis, GSK and MSD outside the submitted work. PL reported grants from Servier; honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Astellas; supports for attending meetings from Daicho, Ipsen, Astellas, Sanofi, Janssen and Pfizer; and participant on advisory board from Daichi outside the submitted work. OLS reported grants from AstraZeneca and BMS; honoraria from GSK, Pharmaand and MSD; and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Accord outside the submitted work. AG reported received payments to his institution for grants from Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Gilead and Novartis; received payments to his institution for consulting fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, MSD and Gilead; received payments to his institution for honoraria from Novartis; support for attending meetings from Mylan and Menarini outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Background: In PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25, the addition of olaparib to bevacizumab maintenance improved overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. We describe the safety profile and quality of life (QoL) of this combination in older patients in PAOLA-1., Methods: Safety (CTCAE v4.03) and QoL (EORTC QoL Questionnaires Core 30 and Ovarian 28) data were collected. We compared safety by age (≥70 vs <70 years) in the olaparib-containing arm. QoL by treatment arm was assessed in older patients. Geriatric features, including Geriatric Vulnerability Score (GVS), were also gathered., Results: Of 806 patients randomized, 142 were ≥70 years old (olaparib-containing arm: n = 104; placebo arm: n = 38). Older patients treated with olaparib exhibited a similar safety profile to younger patients, except for higher rates of all grades of lymphopenia and grade ≥3 hypertension (31.7% vs 21.6%, P =.032 and 26.9% vs 16.7%, P =.019, respectively). No hematological malignancy was reported. Two years after randomization, mean Global Health Status and cognitive functioning seemed better with olaparib than bevacizumab alone (adjusted mean difference: +4.47 points [95% CI, -0.49 to 9.42] and +4.82 [-0.57 to 10.21], respectively), and other QoL items were similar between arms. In the olaparib-containing arm, older patients with baseline GVS ≥ 1 (n = 48) exhibited increased toxicity and poorer QoL than those with GVS of 0 (n = 34)., Conclusion: Among older patients in PAOLA-1, olaparib plus bevacizumab had a manageable safety profile and no adverse impact on QoL. Additional data are required to confirm these results in more vulnerable patients.(ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02477644)., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Combined treatment with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has shown superiority over chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but data for older patients (aged ≥70 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1 or those with an ECOG performance status of 2 are scarce. We aimed to test the superiority of the PD-1 antibody nivolumab and the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab over platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC aged 70 years or older or with an ECOG performance status of 2., Methods: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 30 hospitals and cancer centres in France. Eligible patients had stage IV histologically proven NSCLC, with no known oncogenic alterations, and were either aged 70 years or older with ECOG performance status of 0-2 or younger than 70 years with an ECOG performance status of 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, using a computer-generated algorithm stratified by age (<70 vs ≥70 years), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve ≤700 mg] plus pemetrexed [500 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion every 3 weeks] or carboplatin [on day 1; area under the curve ≤700 mg] plus paclitaxel [90 mg/m 2 as intravenous infusion on days 1, 5, and 15, every 4 weeks]). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. All efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and who had at least one safety follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03351361., Findings: The trial was stopped early for futility on the basis of a pre-planned interim analysis after 33% of the expected events had occurred. Between Feb 12, 2018, and Dec 15, 2020, 217 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 216 patients were included in the final analysis, with 109 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 107 in the chemotherapy group; median age was 74 years (IQR 70-78). Median overall survival was 14·7 months (95% CI 8·0-19·7) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 9·9 months (7·7-12·3) in chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·62-1·16]). Among patients aged 70 years or older with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 (median age 76 years [IQR 73-79]), median overall survival was longer in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the chemotherapy group: 22·6 months (95% CI 18·1-36·0) versus 11·8 months (8·9-20·5; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·46-0·96]). Among patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 (median age 69 years [IQR 63-75]), median overall survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 1·4-4·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus 6·1 months (3·5-10·4) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·32 [95% CI 0·82-2·11]). No new safety signals were reported. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (28 [27%] of 103 patients) in the chemotherapy group and endocrine disorders (five [5%] of 105 patients), cardiac disorders (ten [10%] patients), and gastrointestinal disorders (11 [11%] patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group., Interpretation: The study showed no benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination in the overall study population. As a result of early stopping, the trial was underpowered for primary and secondary endpoints; however, the finding of better survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with platinum doublet in the subgroup of older patients with NSCLC with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 warrants further study., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HL reports support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Sanofi, Amgen, Takeda, and Pfizer; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, MSD, Sanofi, Takeda, Daiichi, Amgen, and Pfizer. LG reports grants or contracts to their institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis; payment or honoraria for lectures or presentations from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly and Novartis; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Amgen; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for InhaTarget Therapeutics. OB reports consulting fees from Roche, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; and honoraria for lectures and presentations from MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. IM reports honoraria for educational events from Regeneron; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer and MSD. AV reports consulting fees from Pierre Fabre, Amgen, and MSD; support for attending meetings or travel from Pierre Fabre and Amgen; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Amgen, and Pierre Fabre. PD reports support for attending meetings or travel from Takeda and Accord Healthcare; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb. FG reports consulting fees from Roche, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; honoraria for lectures or presentations from MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; and congress travel expenses from AstraZeneca and MSD. RC reports meeting presentations and participation on boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb. CCh reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Bayer, and Amgen; and support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Bayer, and Amgen. CR reports consulting fees from Roche, Takeda, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Sanofi; honoraria for lectures or presentations from Sanofi, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD and Sanofi. CCr, CAV, LF, MG, SH, and CL declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Objective: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, irrespective of clinical risk. Subsequently, a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival was reported with olaparib plus bevacizumab in the HRD-positive subgroup. We report updated progression-free survival and overall survival by clinical risk and HRD status., Methods: Patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab received maintenance olaparib (up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (up to 15 months in total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc analysis evaluated 5-year progression-free survival and mature overall survival in patients classified by clinical risk and HRD status., Results: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher-risk and 26% were lower-risk. In higher-risk HRD-positive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34 to 0.61), with 5-year progression-free survival of 35% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 15% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.00), with 5-year overall survival of 55% versus 42%, respectively. In lower-risk HRD-positive patients, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.45), with 5-year progression-free survival of 72% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 28% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), with 5-year overall survival of 88% versus 61%, respectively. No benefit was seen in HRD-negative patients regardless of clinical risk., Conclusion: This post hoc analysis indicates that in patients with newly diagnosed advanced HRD-positive ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab should not be limited to those considered at higher risk of disease progression. Five-year progression-free survival rates support long-term remission and suggest an increased potential for cure with particular benefit suggested in lower-risk HRD-positive patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Domenica Lorusso reports consultancy fees (personal) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, and Seagen; membership on an advisory board (personal) for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Serono, MSD, Oncoinvest, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; and research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; and travel support from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier reports board membership (personal and institution) for Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca; and research funding (personal and institution) from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. Philipp Harter reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, Sotio, Stryker, Zai Lab, MSD, Clovis, Eisai, Mersana, and Exscientia; membership on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Clovis, Immunogen, MSD, Miltenyi, Novartis, and Eisai; and research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Genmab, Immunogen, Seagen, Clovis, and Novartis. Claire Cropet reports no conflicts of interest. Cristina Caballero reports no conflicts of interest. Pia Wolfrum-Ristau reports no conflicts of interest.Toyomi Satoh reports no conflicts of interest. Ignace Vergote reports consulting fees (personal) from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm, Mersana, Molecular Partners, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; contracted research (via KULeuven; institution) for Oncoinvent AS; corporate sponsored research (institution) from Amgen and Roche; and travel support (personal) from Karyopharm, Genmab, and Novocure.Gabriella Parma reports no conflicts of interest. Trine Jakobi Nøttrup reports no conflicts of interest. Coriolan Lebreton reports honoraria (personal) from Eisai, Clovis Oncology, MSD, and GSK. Peter A Fasching reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for Agendia, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seagen; invited speaker fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Seagen; and medical writing support (personal) from Roche. Carmela Pisano reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for AstraZeneca, MSD and GSK; and honoraria (personal) from Clovis Oncology. Luis Manso reports no conflicts of interest. Hugues Bourgeois reports no conflicts of interest. Ingo Runnebaum reports no conflicts of interest. Claudio Zamagni reports reports grants or contract to self from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; grants or contract to self and institution from AstraZeneca, Instituto Gentili, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Tesaro, and Teva; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Celgene, Instituto Gentili, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Tesaro; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, QuintilesIMS, Roche, and Tesaro; and other financial or non-interests for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, QuintilesIMS, Roche, and Tesaro. Anne-Claire Hardy-Bessard reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Novartis. Andreas Schnelzer reports no conflicts of interest. Michel Fabbro reports honoraria from GSK. Barbara Schmalfeldt reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; consultancy or advisory roles from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; membership of a speaker’s bureau for Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; and funding for travel or accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro. Dominique Berton reports no conflicts of interest. Antje Belau reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Clovis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Lilly, and Seagen; advisory roles for Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo Company, and Seagen; and funding for travel or accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo Company. Jean-Pierre Lotz reports no conflicts of interest. Martina Gropp-Meier reports no conflicts of interest. Laurence Gladieff reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, and MSD; and participation on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD. Hans-Joachim Lück reports participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, and Lilly and speaker roles for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and Novartis. Sophie Abadie-Lacourtoisie reports no conflicts of interest. Eric Pujade-Lauraine reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for Roche, GSK, and AstraZeneca; Independent Data Monitoring Committee board membership (personal) for Agenus and Incyte; and employment (personal) at ARCAGY Research. Isabelle Ray-Coquard reports honoraria (personal) from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersena, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche, and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersena, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; research grant/funding (personal) from MSD, Roche, and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: GEMPAX was an open-label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan., Methods: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive GEMPAX (paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 + gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 ; IV; once at day (D) 1, D8, and D15/arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) alone once at D1, D8, and D15 every 28 days until progression, toxicity, or patient's decision. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety., Results: Overall, 211 patients (median age, 64 [30-86] years; 62% male) were included. After a median study follow-up for alive patients of 13.4 versus 13.8 months in arm A versus arm B, the median OS (95% CI) was 6.4 (5.2 to 7.4) versus 5.9 months (4.6 to 6.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]; P = 0.4095), the median PFS was 3.1 (2.2 to 4.3) versus 2.0 months (1.9 to 2.3; HR, 0.64 [0.47 to 0.89]; P = 0.0067), and the ORR was 17.1% (11.3 to 24.4) versus 4.2% (0.9 to 11.9; P = 0.008) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. Overall, 16.7% of patients in arm A and 2.9% in arm B discontinued their treatment because of adverse events (AEs). One grade 5 AE associated with both gemcitabine and paclitaxel was reported in arm A (acute respiratory distress), and 58.0% versus 27.1% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs in arm A versus arm B, among which 15.2% versus 4.3% had anemia, 15.9% versus 15.7% had neutropenia, 19.6% versus 4.3% had thrombocytopenia, 10.1% versus 2.9% had asthenia and 12.3% versus 0.0% had neuropathy., Conclusion: While GEMPAX did not meet the primary end point of OS versus gemcitabine alone in patients with mPDAC in the second-line setting, both PFS and ORR were significantly improved.

Background: Despite advancements in managing metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (mccRCC) through antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy, there remains a demand for novel treatments for patients experiencing progression despite the use of these medications. There is currently no established standard treatment for patients receiving third therapy line. Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) whose high expression has been demonstrated in metastatic aggressive prostate adenocarcinoma is also highly expressed in neovessels of various solid tumors including renal cell carcinoma (RCC): 86% of clear cell RCC, 61% of chromophobe RCC, and 28% of papillary RCC. Therefore, PSMA may be a target expressed in metastatic ccRCC for radionuclide therapy using PSMA ligands radiolabeled with Lutetium-177 (PRLT). 177 Lu-PSMA delivers ß-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the surrounding microenvironment with demonstrated efficacy in metastatic prostate cancer., Methods: This is a multicenter phase I/II study designed to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of 177Lu-PSMA-1 in individuals with PSMA-positive metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), identified through 68Ga-PSMA PET, conducted in France (PRadR). 48 patients will be treated with 4 cycles of 7.4 GBq of 177 Lu-PSMA-1 every 6 weeks. The primary objective is to evaluate the safety of 177 Lu-PSMA-1 (phase I) and the efficacy of 177 Lu-PSMA-1 in mccRCC patients (phase II). Primary endpoints are incidence of Severe Toxicities (ST) occurring during the first cycle (i.e. 6 first weeks) and disease Control Rate after 24 weeks of treatment (DCR24w) as per RECIST V1.1. Secondary objective is to further document the clinical activity of 177Lu-PSMA-1 in mccRCC patients (duration of response (DoR), best overall response rate (BORR), progression fee survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Discussion: Our prospective study may lead to new potential indications for the use of 177 Lu-PSMA-1 in mccRCC patients and should confirm the efficacy and safety of this radionuclide therapy with limited adverse events. The use of 177 Lu-PSMA-1may lead to increase disease control, objective response rate and the quality of life in mccRCC patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06059014., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: BRAF inhibitors are approved in BRAF V600 -mutated metastatic melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD), and thyroid cancer. We report here the efficacy, safety, and long-term results of single-agent vemurafenib given in the AcSé vemurafenib basket study to patients with various BRAF-mutated advanced tumours other than BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma and NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced tumours other than BRAF V600E melanoma and progressing after standard treatment were eligible for inclusion in nine cohorts (including a miscellaneous cohort) and received oral vemurafenib 960 mg two times daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) estimated with a Bayesian design. The secondary outcomes were disease control rate, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and vemurafenib safety., Results: A total of 98 advanced patients with various solid or haematological cancers, 88 with BRAF V600 mutations and 10 with BRAF nonV600 mutations, were included. The median follow-up duration was 47.7 months. The Bayesian estimate of ORR was 89.7% in hairy cell leukaemias (HCLs), 33.3% in the glioblastomas cohort, 18.2% in cholangiocarcinomas, 80.0% in ECD, 50.0% in ovarian cancers, 50.0% in xanthoastrocytomas, 66.7% in gangliogliomas, and 60.0% in sarcomas. The median PFS of the whole series was 8.8 months. The 12-, 24-, and 36-month PFS rates were 42.2%, 23.8%, and 17.9%, respectively. Overall, 54 patients died with a median OS of 25.9 months, with a projected 4-year OS of 40%. Adverse events were similar to those previously reported with vemurafenib., Conclusion: Responses and prolonged PFS were observed in many tumours with BRAF mutations, including HCL, ECD, ovarian carcinoma, gliomas, ganglioglioma, and sarcomas. Although not all cancer types responded, vemurafenib is an agnostic oncogene therapy of cancers., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A steady decline in the number of cases of malaria was observed in the 2000s in French Guiana. This enabled regional health policies to shift their public health goal from control to elimination. To include inhabitants in this strategy, the main objective of this study was to describe knowledge about malaria, and related attitudes and practices in persons living in the French Guiana border., Methods: We conducted a survey in people over 15 years old living in the twelve neighbourhoods of Saint-Georges de l'Oyapock with the highest malaria incidence. It comprised a 147-item questionnaire which collected data on socio-demographic characteristics and included a Knowledge Attitude and Practices survey on malaria. Knowledge-related data were studied using exploratory statistical methods to derive summary variables. A binary variable assessing level of knowledge was proposed and then assessed using exploratory approaches., Results: The mean age of the 844 participants was 37.2 years [15.8], the male/female sex ratio was 0.8. In terms of nationality, 485 (57.5%) participants were Brazilian and 352 (41.7%) French. One third (305, 36.1%) spoke Brazilian Portuguese as their native language, 295 (34.9%) the Amerindian language Palikur, 36 (4.3%) French. The symptoms of malaria and prevention means were poorly known by 213 (25.2%) and 378 (44.8%) respondents, respectively. A quarter (206, 24.4%) did not know that malaria can be fatal. Overall, 251 people (29.7%) had an overall poor level of knowledge about malaria. Being under 25 years old, living in a native Amerindian neighbourhood, having an Amerindian mother tongue language, having risk behaviours related to gold mining were significantly associated with a poor level of knowledge., Conclusions: This study is the first to describe the poor level of knowledge about malaria in populations living in the malaria endemic border area along the Oyapock river in French Guiana. Results will allow to reinforce, to diversify and to culturally adapt prevention messages and health promotion to increase their effectiveness with a view to quickly reaching the goal of malaria elimination through empowerment., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a recent, non-ionizing and non-invasive technology of focal destruction. Independence from the heat-sink effect of blood flow makes HIFU an interesting technique for focal ablation of liver tumors. Current available technology is based on extracorporeal treatment that limits use of HIFU for the treatment of liver tumors, as elementary ablations are small and must be juxtaposed to treat tumors, resulting in long-duration treatment. We developed an HIFU probe with toroidal technology, which increases the volume of ablation, for intra-operative use, and we assessed the feasibility and efficacy of this device in patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) measuring less than 30 mm., Methods: This study was an ablate-and-resect, prospective, single-center, phase II study. All ablations were performed in the area of liver scheduled for liver resection to avoid loss of chance of recovery. The primary objective was to ablate CLM with safety margins (>5 mm)., Results: Between May 2014 and July 2020, 15 patients were enrolled and 24 CLM were targeted. The HIFU ablation time was 370 s. In total, 23 of 24 CLM were successfully treated (95.8%). No damage occurred to extrahepatic tissues. HIFU ablations were oblate shaped with an average long axis of 44.3 ± 6.1 mm and an average shortest axis of 35.9 ± 6.7 mm. On pathological examination, the average diameter of the treated metastasis was 12.2 ± 4.8 mm., Conclusion: Intra-operative HIFU can safely and accurately produce large ablations in 6 min with real-time guidance (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01489787)., (Copyright © 2023 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis., Results: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms., Conclusions: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors after progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure., Competing Interests: Disclosure IRC reports honoraria (personal) from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche, and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; research grant/funding (self) from MSD, Roche, and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK. AL reports grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi; consulting fees from Seattle Genetics; honoraria/reimbursement and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees or continuing medical education from Ability Pharma, Biocad, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, TouchCongress, and Zentalis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ARIEL4 and TROPHIMMUNE. SP reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and PharmaMar; and research funding (institution) from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. AGM reports advisory/consultancy fees (personal) from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Illumina, ImmunoGen, MSD, Macrogenics, Mersana, Novartis, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Regeneron, Sotio, and Sutro; speaker bureau fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Novocure, Takeda, Zai Lab, and Clovis; research grant/funding (institution) from Roche, Novartis, GSK, and Aravive; and steering committee member (personal) for MSD. CM reports honoraria/consulting fees (personal) from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; participation on an advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; and travel expenses from Roche and AstraZeneca. SN reports honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Mochida, MSD, Takeda, and Terumo; and research grant (self) from AstraZeneca. IV reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; contracted research funding (via KULeuven) from Oncoinvent AS; corporate sponsored research funding from Amgen and Roche; and accommodation and travel expenses from Karyopharm. NC reports research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, and Eisai; honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, BIOCAD, ImmunoGen, Mersana Therapeutics, Eisai, and OncXerna Therapeutics; and is a steering committee member on ESMO clinical guidelines and a scientific committee chair for Acto Onlus. JM reports honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. FS reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK Tesaro, MSD, Sandoz (Novartis), and Clovis Oncology; and institutional financial support from Roche, GSK Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, MSD, Incyte, and Agenus. JS reports grants or contracts from Roche Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, GSK, Lilly, Tesaro, consulting fees from Tesaro, Merck, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche Pharma, GSK, MSD, Eisai, Novocure, Oncoinvent, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Tesaro, GSK, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bayer, Roche, PharmaMar, Vifor Pharma, Hexal AG, Novartis Pharma. DL reports consultancy fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, Novartis, and Seagen; membership on an advisory board (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Oncoinvest, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; and travel support from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. EMGA reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca–MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK–Tesaro, PharmaMar, and Roche; speaker bureau/expert testimony honorarium from AstraZeneca–MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; and travel support from Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Baxter. GB reports consulting or advisory board roles for AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK; and has received funding for medical conferences from AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK. CLP reports advisory/consultancy honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Daiichi–Sanko; and other travel/accommodation/medical congress expenses from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and MSD. PB reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and congress and travel support from GSK and PharmaMar. AL reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Tesaro; speaker honoraria from Clovis Oncology and Roche; and participation in a medical congress for Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, and Roche. AB reports honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Tesaro. JM reports advisory board fees (personal) from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Eli Lilly; and non-financial traveling facilities from Pfizer. AEB reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and GSK; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca and Olympus; and participation in a medical congress for PharmaMar and AstraZeneca. MR reports advisory board fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Immunocore; advisory board fees and research grant (personal/institution) from MSD; and research grant (institution) from BMS. TWPS reports honoraria (advisory role, expert testimony and lectures, participation in clinical trials, other financial relationships, e.g. travel) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, MSD, NCO, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. CD reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. DD reports consulting or advisory roles (personal) for AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, Roche, Eisai Germany, and MSD Oncology; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, MSD, Intuitive Surgical, and KLS Martin. BY reports consulting fees (personal) from MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK–Tesaro, Bayer, Roche–Genentech, ECS Progastrin, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, SEAGEN, and Myriad. EPL reports lecture fees, speaker’s bureau fees, and travel support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and Roche; lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, Incyte, and Pfizer; and is employed by ARCAGY Research. PH reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis Oncology, Stryker, MSD Oncology, Zai Lab, Lilly, Sotio, Eisai, and GSK; consulting/advisory roles from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, Merck, GSK, Clovis Oncology, and Immunogen; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, and Clovis Oncology. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Additional systemic treatment for early breast cancer in elderly is challenged by increasing comorbidities with age. We aimed to examine the effect of additional chemotherapy on overall survival in patients aged 70 years or older and the impact of comorbidities on chemotherapy benefit., Methods: This retrospective monocentric cohort study includes data from all patients aged 70 years and older who underwent surgery for an early breast cancer from 1997 to 2016. A propensity score analysis allowed adjustment for chemotherapy prescription preferences based on tumour characteristics., Results: Of 15,599 patients who had surgery for an early breast cancer, 1743 (11.2%) over 70 years old were included, of whom 269 (15.4%) had received additional chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 5.3 years. Multivariate analyses on the propensity-score weighted cohort (n = 1 354) identified improved overall survival in patients with chemotherapy versus without (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.92). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 2.16, 95% CI 1.40-3.34) and polypharmacy (HR 1.40, 95%CI 1.07-1.84) were associated with worse overall survival. No statistically significant interactions were identified between these comorbidities and chemotherapy prescription., Conclusion: Additional chemotherapy in elderly with early breast cancer is feasible and associated with overall survival benefit, supporting the importance of chemotherapy considerations in this population, and of avoiding undertreatment based on chronological age considerations alone., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: The phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 study (NCT02477644) showed that addition of olaparib to bevacizumab maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab in older patients in PAOLA-1., Methods: Baseline clinical and molecular data, and PFS, were compared between older (aged ≥65 years) and younger patients (<65 years). Factors associated with olaparib efficacy, and safety in age subgroups, were also assessed., Results: Of 806 randomised patients, 292 (36.2%) were ≥65 years. A lower proportion of older versus younger patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (61.0% versus 76.2%) and upfront surgery (42.0% versus 55.7%). Older patients were less likely to have a BRCA1/2 mutation (17.1% versus 36.7%) or homologous recombination deficiency-positive status (34.1% versus 55.7%). After median follow-up of 22.1 months, median PFS was 21.6 months with olaparib versus 16.6 months with placebo in the older population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.75), comparable with the younger population (median 22.9 versus 16.9 months; HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.77). PFS benefits were observed in patients with a BRCA mutation or homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumours. Incidence of olaparib-related grade ≥3 adverse events in older patients was comparable with that of younger patients (36.8% versus 31.7%) although hypertension and anaemia were more common in older patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred in older patients receiving olaparib., Conclusion: Older patients enrolled in PAOLA-1 achieved similar PFS benefits compared with younger patients, with a similar safety profile., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) agents have only moderate antitumor activity in some advanced solid tumors (AST), including breast cancer (BC), prostate cancer (PC), cervical cancer (CC), and head and neck cancer (HNC). Combining anti-PD-L1 with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA) and chemotherapy may significantly improve efficacy., Patients and Methods: MOVIE is a multicohort phase I/II study examining the combination of anti-PD-L1 durvalumab (Durv; 1500 mg IV Q4W) plus anti-CTLA tremelimumab (Trem; 75 mg IV Q4W) with metronomic vinorelbine (MVino; 20-40 mg orally daily) in various AST resistant to conventional therapies. The primary objective of the phase I part was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose for phase II (RP2D)., Results: Among the 14 patients enrolled during phase I, including 13 women and 1 man, 9 had BC, 1 PC, 2 CC, and 2 miscellaneous cancers with high mutational loads. Median age was 53 years. A total of 12 patients were assessable for the dose-escalation part in which only one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed [one neutropenia without fever, grade (G) 4]. Two (14.3%), four (28.6%), and four (28.6%) patients had G ≥3 adverse events (AEs) related to MVino, Durv, and Trem, respectively. Treatment-related events included mostly clinical AEs with asthenia (eight G2; three G3), colitis (one G2, one G3), diarrhea (one G3), nausea (two G2), dry skin (two G2), maculopapular rash (one G3), and hyperthyroidism (three G2). No toxic death was reported. Preliminary data showed one patient (CC) who presented a complete response and four patients with stable disease (SD)., Conclusions: MTD was not reached and dose level 2 (MVino 40 mg, Durv 1500 mg, Trem 75 mg) was selected as RP2D. The safety profile of the combination was manageable and consistent with previous reports of Trem + Durv or MVino. Phase II is currently ongoing in BC, PC, CC, HNC, and miscellaneous cohorts., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and aims: Pancreatic cancer is highly lethal and often diagnosed at an advanced stage. This cohort study analyzes the impact of care pathways, delays, and socio-spatial determinants on pancreatic cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Method: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma newly diagnosed at all stages between January and June 2016 in the AuRA French region were included. The influence on survival of delays of care, healthcare centers’ expertise, and socio-spatial determinants was evaluated. Results: Here, 538 patients were included in 76 centers including 116 patients (21.8%) with resectable, 64 (12.0%) borderline-resectable, 147 (27.6%) locally-advanced tumors, and 205 (38.5%) with metastatic disease. A delay between first symptoms and CT scans did not statistically influence overall survival (OS). In resected patients, OS was significantly higher in centers with more than 20 surgeries (HR<5 surgeries/year = 2.236 and HR5-20 surgeries/year = 1.215 versus centers with > 20 surgeries/year p = 0.0081). Regarding socio-spatial determinants, patients living in municipalities with greater access to a general practitioner (HR = 1.673, p = 0.0153) or with a population density below 795.1 people/km2 (HR = 1.881, p = 0.0057) were significantly more often resectable. Conclusion: This cohort study supports the pivotal role of general practitioner in cancer care and the importance of the centralization of pancreatic surgery to optimize pancreatic cancer patients’ care and outcomes. However, delays of care did not impact patient survival.

Background: PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. We report the prespecified main second progression-free survival (PFS2) analysis for PAOLA-1., Methods: This randomised, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 11 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 15 months. Primary PFS end-point was reported previously. Time from randomisation to second disease progression or death was a key secondary end-point included in the hierarchical-testing procedure., Results: After a median follow-up of 35.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, median PFS2 was 36.5 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 32.6 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0125. Median time to second subsequent therapy or death was 38.2 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 31.5 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0115. Seventy-two (27%) patients in the placebo plus bevacizumab group received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor as first subsequent therapy. No new safety signals were observed for olaparib plus bevacizumab., Conclusion: In newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided continued benefit beyond first progression, with a significant PFS2 improvement and a time to second subsequent therapy or death delay versus placebo plus bevacizumab., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer in the randomized, double-blind PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644). We analyzed PFS by clinical risk and biomarker status., Methods: Patients received olaparib 300 mg twice daily for up to 24 months plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 15 months in total, or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc exploratory analysis evaluated PFS in patients classified as higher risk (stage III with upfront surgery and residual disease or neoadjuvant chemotherapy; stage IV) or lower risk (stage III with upfront surgery and no residual disease), and by biomarker status., Results: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher risk and 26% were lower risk. After a median 22.9 months of follow-up, PFS favored olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in higher-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.74) and lower-risk patients (0.46; 0.30-0.72). Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided a substantial PFS benefit versus bevacizumab alone in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive subgroup (higher risk: HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.54 and lower risk: 0.15; 0.07-0.30), with 24-month PFS rates in lower-risk patients of 90% versus 43%, respectively (Kaplan-Meier estimates)., Conclusions: In PAOLA-1, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided a substantial PFS benefit in HRD-positive patients with a reduction of risk of progression or death of 61% in the higher-risk group and of 85% in the lower-risk group compared with bevacizumab alone., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Philipp Harter reports grant support from AstraZeneca, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medac, and Genmab; and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, Sotio, Zai Lab, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Clovis Oncology, and Immunogen. Marie Ange Mouret-Reynier has nothing to disclose. Sandro Pignata reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology and PharmaMar. Claire Cropet has nothing to disclose. Antonio González-Martín reports grants from Roche and GSK (funding for ENGOT ov-41 trial and ANITA); consulting fees from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Genmab, Mersana, Roche, Immunogen, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Sotio, and Takeda; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Roche, and MSD; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, MSD and PharmaMar; and being the Chairman of GEICO and Chairman of ENGOT (2018–2020). Gerhard Bogner reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca and Roche. Keiichi Fujiwara reports consulting fees and grant support from Pfizer, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Taiho, Zeria, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Genmab and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, receiving grant support from Immunogen, Oncotherapy and Regeneron, and receiving consulting fees from Novartis, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Daiichi Sankyo, Mochida Pharmaceutical and NanoCarrier. Ignace Vergote reports grant support from Amgen and Roche; research support from Oncoinvent AS and Genmab; consulting fees from Aksebio, Amgen (Europe) GmbH, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Carrick Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., Genmab, GSK, Immunogen Inc., Jazz Pharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Octimet Oncology NV, Oncoinvent AZ, Seagen, Sotio a.s., Verastem Oncology, Zentalis; and support for attending meetings and travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, Tesaro. Nicoletta Colombo reports research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, Merck Sharp and Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline and Eisai; honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Merck Sharp and Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Tesaro, Pfizer, BioCad, Immunogen, Mersana, Eisai and Oncxema; and is a Steering Committee member on ESMO clinical guidelines and a Scientific Committee Chair for Acto Onlus. Trine Jakobi Nøttrup has nothing to disclose. Anne Floquet reports support for attending meetings and travel from AstraZeneca, GSK and PharmaMar. Ahmed El-Balat reports an advisory role for Roche, Clovis Oncology and Tesaro; lecture honoraria from Roche, Astra Zeneca and Olympus; travel support from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Teva. Giovanni Scambia reports grants/research support from MSD Italia S.r.l.; consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson, and TESARO Bio Italy S.r.l; and speaker's bureau fees from Clovis Oncology Italy Srl and MSD Italia Srl. Eva Maria Guerra Alia reports consulting fees from Roche, Clovis Oncology, GSK-Tesaro, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca and MSD; travel support from Roche, Baxter and GSK-Tesaro; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, Clovis Oncology, GSK-Tesaro, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca and MSD. Michel Fabbro reports honoraria from Astra Zeneca and GSK. Barbara Schmalfeldt reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Roche and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, GSK, MSD, and Clovis Oncology; travel support from AstraZeneca and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD; and leadership or fiduciary role for Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Anne-Claire Hardy-Bessard reports consulting and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Seagen. Ingo Runnebaum reports lecture and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, and GlaxoSmithKline. Eric Pujade-Lauraine reports lecture fees and speaker's bureau fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Tesaro, and Roche; lecture fees from Clovis and Pfizer; expert testimony fees from AstraZeneca; travel support from AstraZeneca and GSK; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from AstraZeneca, Roche and Incyte; and is employed by ARCAGY Research. Isabelle Ray-Coquard reports honoraria (self) from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersena, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro and Clovis; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro and Clovis; research grant/funding (self) from MSD, Roche and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Astra Zeneca and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche and AstraZeneca and GSK., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ethnopharmacological Relevance: In French Guiana, traditional phytotherapies are an important part of self-healthcare, however, a precise understanding of the interactions between local phytotherapies and biomedicine is lacking. Malaria is still endemic in the transition area between French Guiana and Brazil, and practices of self-treatment, although difficult to detect, have possible consequences on the outcome of public health policies., Aim of the Study: The objectives of this research were 1) to document occurences of co-medication (interactions between biomedicine and local phytotherapies) against malaria around Saint-Georges de l'Oyapock (SGO), 2) to quantify and to qualify plant uses against malaria, 3) and to discuss potential effects of such co-medications, in order to improve synergy between community efforts and public health programs in SGO particularly, and in Amazonia more broadly., Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2017 in SGO. Inhabitants of any age and nationality were interviewed using a questionnaire (122 questions) about their knowledge and habits regarding malaria, and their use of plants to prevent and treat it. They were invited to show their potential responses on a poster illustrating the most common antimalarial plants used in the area. In order to correlate plant uses and malaria epidemiology, all participants subsequently received a medical examination, and malaria detection was performed by Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)., Results: A total of 1566 inhabitants were included in the study. Forty-six percent of them declared that they had been infected by malaria at least once, and this rate increased with age. Every person who reported that they had had malaria also indicated that they had taken antimalarial drugs (at least for the last episode), and self-medication against malaria with pharmaceuticals was reported in 142 cases. A total of 550 plant users was recorded (35.1% of the interviewed population). Among them 95.5% associated pharmaceuticals to plants. All plants reported to treat malaria were shared by every cultural group around SGO, but three plants were primarily used by the Palikur: Cymbopogon citratus, Citrus aurantifolia and Siparuna guianensis. Two plants stand out among those used by Creoles: Eryngium foetidum and Quassia amara, although the latter is used by all groups and is by far the most cited plant by every cultural group. Cultivated species accounts for 91.3% of the use reports, while wild taxa account for only 18.4%., Conclusions: This study showed that residents of SGO in French Guiana are relying on both traditional phytotherapies and pharmaceutical drugs to treat malaria. This medical pluralism is to be understood as a form of pragmatism: people are collecting or cultivating plants for medicinal purposes, which is probably more congruent with their respective cultures and highlights the wish for a certain independence of the care process. A better consideration of these practices is thus necessary to improve public health response to malaria., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over 30 million COVID-19 cases have been diagnosed worldwide from late 2019. Among frail persons, cancer patients are at high risk of death from COVID-19., Methods: The French prospective cohort ONCOVID-19 enrolled patients with solid or haematological tumour, receiving anticancer treatment and presenting with clinical symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. COVID-19 was confirmed through detectable SARS-CoV2 by RT-PCR (repeated twice if negative first) and/or specific CT-scan. The study aims to assess the 28-day mortality rate after the first COVID test., Results: From March 1st to May 21st 2020, 23 French cancer centres and hospitals enrolled 1230 cancer patients with suspicion of COVID-19, including 1162 (94.5%) matching the inclusion criteria. We identified 425 (36.6%) COVID-19 positive patients including 155 (13.3%) diagnosed with CT-scan only, while 737 (63.4%) patients were COVID-19 negative. Death at day-28 occurred in 116/425 (27.8%) COVID-19 positive patients, and in 118/737 (16.3%) COVID-19 negative patients (p < 0·0001). With a median follow-up of 2.1 (1.6-2.4) months, 310 (26.7%) deaths were reported including 143 (33.6%) in the COVID-19 positive population, and 167 (22.7%) in the COVID-19 negative patients. Male gender, age, metastatic disease, immunosuppressive treatments, lymphopenia, COVID-19 diagnosis and diabetes were independent risk factors for death., Conclusion: Patients with solid and haematological cancers presenting COVID-19 symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed or not are both at high-risk of early mortality. COVID-19 is reported as the cause of death in 50% of COVID-19 positive patients with cancer., Clinical Trial Registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04363632., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: The impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave on cancer patient management was measured within the nationwide network of the Unicancer comprehensive cancer centers in France., Patients and Methods: The number of patients diagnosed and treated within 17 of the 18 Unicancer centers was collected in 2020 and compared with that during the same periods between 2016 and 2019. Unicancer centers treat close to 20% of cancer patients in France yearly. The reduction in the number of patients attending the Unicancer centers was analyzed per regions and cancer types. The impact of delayed care on cancer-related deaths was calculated based on different hypotheses., Results: A 6.8% decrease in patients managed within Unicancer in the first 7 months of 2020 versus 2019 was observed. This reduction reached 21% during April and May, and was not compensated in June and July, nor later until November 2020. This reduction was observed only for newly diagnosed patients, while the clinical activity for previously diagnosed patients increased by 4% similar to previous years. The reduction was more pronounced in women, in breast and prostate cancers, and for patients without metastasis. Using an estimated hazard ratio of 1.06 per month of delay in diagnosis and treatment of new patients, we calculated that the delays observed in the 5-month period from March to July 2020 may result in an excess mortality due to cancer of 1000-6000 patients in coming years., Conclusions: In this study, the delays in cancer patient management were observed only for newly diagnosed patients, more frequently in women, for breast cancer, prostate cancer, and nonmetastatic cancers. These delays may result is an excess risk of cancer-related deaths in the coming years., Competing Interests: Disclosure JYB reports research support and honoraria from Troche, BMS, MSD, PharmaMar, Bayer, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. JPD reports institutional fees for advisory or speaker roles for Genentech, Roche, BMS, MSD, and Novartis, and institutional grants for research projects with Genentech, Roche, BMS, MSD, Debiopharm, and Astra Zeneca. JCS reports shares from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gritstone, and is also a full-time employee of AstraZeneca from September 2017 to December 2019. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Influenza has been shown to increase the risk for severe bacterial infection, in the tropics the seasonality of influenza epidemics is less marked, and this may not be the case. Dengue is often followed by prolonged asthenia and some physicians hypothesized increased susceptibility to infections based on anecdotal observations. Design and Methods: Time series of influenza and dengue surveillance were confronted bacterial sepsis admissions to test the hypotheses. Monthly surveillance data on influenza and dengue and aggregated sepsis data in Cayenne hospital were matched between 24/10/2007 and 27/09/2016. An ARIMA (1,0,1) model was used. Results The series of the number of monthly cases of sepsis was positively associated with the monthly number of cases of influenza at time t (β=0.001, p=0.0359). Forecasts were imperfectly correlated with sepsis since influenza is not the only risk factor for sepsis. None of the ARIMA models showed a significant link between the dengue series and the sepsis series. Conclusions: There was thus no link between dengue epidemics and sepsis, but it was estimated that for every 1,000 cases of flu there was one additional case of sepsis. In this tropical setting, influenza was highly seasonal, and improved vaccination coverage could have benefits on sepsis., (©Copyright: the Author(s).)

Background: BRAF mutations occurring in 1%-5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSé vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort., Patients and Methods: Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAF V600 mutation and 17 with BRAF nonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAF nonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAF V600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%-54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8-6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8-15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications., Conclusion: Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAF V600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAF V600 -mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAF nonV600 mutations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

To implement future malaria elimination strategies in French Guiana, a characterization of the infectious reservoir is recommended. A cross-sectional survey was conducted between October and December 2017 in the French Guianese municipality of St Georges de l'Oyapock, located along the Brazilian border. The prevalence of Plasmodium spp . was determined using a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Demographic, house locations, medical history, and biological data were analyzed. Factors associated with Plasmodium spp. carriage were analyzed using logistic regression, and the carriage localization was investigated through spatial cluster analysis. Of the 1,501 samples analyzed with PCR, positive results totaled 90 and 10 for Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum , respectively. The general PCR prevalence was 6.6% [5.3-7.9], among which 74% were asymptomatic. Only 13/1,549 were positive by RDT. In multivariate analysis, participants older than 15 years, living in a remote neighborhood, with a prior history of malaria, anemia, and thrombocytopenia were associated with an increased odds of Plasmodium spp. carriage. High-risk clusters of P. vivax carriage were detected in the most remote neighborhoods on the village outskirts and two small foci in the village center. We also detected a hot spot for both P. vivax and P. falciparum symptomatic carriers in the northwestern part of the village. The present study confirms a wide-scale presence of asymptomatic P. falciparum and P. vivax carriers in this area. Although they were more often located in remote areas, their geographic distribution was spatially heterogeneous and complex.

(1) Objectives: French Guiana is the French territory most affected by sickle cell disease (SCD). This study investigates the associations between different environmental factors relative to climate, infectious outbreaks, and emergency visits or weekly hospital admissions for vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC). The identification of risk factors would lead to better patient care and patient management, and more targeted prevention and therapeutic education for patients with SCD in French Guiana. (2) Methods: This study was performed using data collected from the medicalized information system and emergency medical records of Cayenne General Hospital, between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016. ARIMA models were used to investigate the potential impact of weather conditions and flu epidemics on VOC occurrence. (3) Results: During the study period, 1739 emergency visits were recorded among 384 patients, of which 856 (49.2%) resulted in hospitalization, 811 (46.6%) resulted in hospital discharge, and 72 (4.2%) in another orientation. Decreased temperature and decreased humidity were both independent factors associated with an increase of VOC cases ( p = 0.0128 and p = 0.0004, respectively). When studying severe VOC (leading to hospitalization, with or without prior emergency visit), 2104 hospital admissions were recorded for 326 patients. The only factor associated with severe VOC, in the multivariate analysis, was flu epidemics ( p = 0.0148). (4) Conclusions: This study shows a link between climate, flu epidemics, and VOC in French Guiana. Patient's awareness of risks related to climate and flu epidemics should be encouraged, as home prevention measures can help avoid painful crises. Moreover, physicians should encourage patients to get immunized for influenza every year.

Background: Prisoners in French Guiana, a French territory located in South America, have a HIV and hepatitis B prevalence of 4%. Body modifications such as penile implants, tattoos, and body piercings are common among detainees, increasing the risk of blood-borne virus transmission., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional randomised survey in which the primary objective was to estimate the prevalence of high risk 'bloody practices' (penile implants, tattoos, body piercings) in French Guiana's only correctional facility. The secondary objective was to describe the risk factors for penile implants, the procedures and motivations for insertion, the reported complications, their risk factors and adverse impact on condom use., Results: Of the 221 male inmates interviewed, 19% had tattoos or body piercings while incarcerated, and 68% had penile implants, of which, 85% had been inserted inside the correctional facility. Addictive behaviors such as cannabis use and alcohol addiction (positive AUDIT-C score), early age at first sexual intercourse, and the number of incarcerations correlated positively with having inserted one or more penile implants while incarcerated. In contrast, having reported previous psychiatric hospitalizations and having a high knowledge score for HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were negatively correlated with the insertion of penile implants while incarcerated. Penile implants were inserted in poor hygienic conditions, usually using the sharp lid of a canned food container, with 18% of early complications, mostly haemorrhage and edema. Condom use was negatively impacted for 52% of men with penile implants., Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for prevention interventions which should aim at increasing knowledge levels and at implementing comprehensive risk-reduction measures., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Twenty-five to 65% of patients suffer from chronic pain after breast cancer. The treatment combines analgesic drugs and psychophysical techniques., Hypothesis: Osteopathy improves the control of pain and the quality of life of patients., Methods: This randomized prospective single center study allocated patients to the initiation of a standard analgesic treatment exclusively (arm A) or associated to osteopathy (arm B) between from 1 to 12months after surgery., Main Objective: Intensity of pain (VAS at three months [j90])., Secondary Objectives: Pain (VAS) at 6 and 12 months, analgesic consumption, anxiety/depression (HADS), and Quality of life (QLQ-C30). Eighty patients were planned to observe a 2-point difference in VAS (5% bilateral alpha, 90% power)., Results: Twenty-eight patients (A: 14; B: 14, median age 50 years) were included from April 2011 to February 2014; the study was stopped due to a too slow recruitment. No difference in the VAS pain score between arms was observed at j90 (P=0.258), nor at 6 and 12 months. At j90, the HADS depression score was reduced in arm B (P=0.049). Improvement in the overall score of quality of life (P=0.015), and reduced pain sub-score (P=0.021) were observed at j90 in arm B., Discussion: Patients are strongly seeking complementary therapies. Few studies exist. Our study has encountered major recruitment difficulties therefore limiting the interpretation of the results. Despite the absence of difference in the main objective, some other scores (QOL, depression) are noteworthy in favor of osteopathy. Further multicentric studies are needed., (Copyright © 2019 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: In French Guiana, health inequalities are patent for a broad range of pathologies for all age groups. The objective of the present study was to quantify the proportion of the population that had renounced care in the past year, to study predictive factors, and to compare results with other French territories., Methods: A two-stage random sample of 2015 individuals aged 15 to 75 years was surveyed by telephone. A descriptive analysis of variables relative to renouncing care, use of health care, screening, and vaccination was initially performed. Multivariate analysis was then used to determine variables associated with renouncing care for financial reasons and renouncing for reasons linked to time were directly estimated using a Poisson model on weighted data. Variables with a significance level < 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were included in the full multivariate model., Results: In French Guiana, during the past 12 months, 30.9% of surveyed persons renounced care whatever the type for financial reasons. Results of the multivariate analysis showed that gender, perceived financial situation, perceived health and complementary insurance status were independent predictive factors of care renouncement for financial reasons. Overall, 24% of the surveyed population declared having renounced to care for time-related motives. The independent predictors for time-related renouncing were different than those for renouncing care for financial reasons: a higher education level and a poor perceived health were independently associated with time-related renouncement; retired persons and students were found to renounce care less frequently than persons with a job., Conclusions: Renouncing for financial reasons, a major target of the 2016 health law, represented a public health problem in French Guiana. Renouncing for lack of time was an important motive for renouncing, which is aggravated by the insufficient number of health professionals, but may benefit from organizational solutions. There are avenues for improvement of health for the most vulnerable: promote health, act on risk factors, and facilitate the readability and accessibility of the health system. Recent reforms to stabilize health insurance may however have some adverse consequences for migrants.

Objectives: The management of cancer in aging people remains a challenge for physicians. Specialists agree on the assistance provided by a multidimensional geriatric assessment (MGA) to guide the cancer treatment decision-making process. We aim to explore the use of MGA in treatment decision and to identify MGA parameters likely to influence the planned cancer treatment., Material and Methods: We conducted a single-site retrospective study in patients older than 65 years suffering from various types of cancer who underwent MGA before cancer treatment decision. Logistic regression analyses were used for identification of predictive variables., Results: In the 266 patients' population, the mean age was 75.8 ± 7.4 years and 155 (58%) patients were men. Patients had solid tumors (95.4%) or hematologic malignancies (4.6%). Most of patients were in advanced setting (57%). The MGA revealed malnutrition (47%), cognitive/mood impairment (48%), functional decline (53%), and led to adjust medical care through reinforcing health status and fostering successful completion of cancer treatment plan for 259 (97%) patients. The MGA changed cancer treatment in 47 (18%) patients. Functional and/or cognitive impairment, risk of falls, and polypharmacy were associated with treatment change in univariate analysis. No multivariate model was possible., Conclusions: MGA leads to modification of treatment in only few patients. However, MGA enables a better understanding of patients' strengths and weaknesses essential to improve care management. Further improvements with integration of innovative specific tools are warranted to help decision-process in the increasing complexity of treatment plans available in older adults., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)