Search

Single-agent osimertinib has improved outcomes in EGFR-mutated lung cancer patients with brain metastases (BMs), but still, 40 % of them will experience an intracranial progression. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the role of brain radiotherapy upfront plus osimertinib. We evaluated articles comparing the use of osimertinib versus osimertinib plus brain radiotherapy. We included 897 patients from nine retrospective studies. Patients treated with combination therapy had an improvement in intracranial progression-free survival (HR 0.76; 95 % CI 0.61-0.94) and overall survival (HR 0.56; 95 % CI 0.36-0.87) with an acceptable safety profile. Osimertinib with upfront brain radiotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment option for EGFR mutated patients with BMs at diagnosis. The main limitations of this analysis are the retrospective nature and the inability to control for a single variable of interest. Despite that, the combination of osimertinib and upfront brain radiotherapy is a treatment strategy that deserves further prospective trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

To provide evidence-based guidelines about Peritoneal Surface Malignancy (PSM) treatment for the Peritoneal Surfaces Oncology Group International. The GRADE ADOLOPMENT method was used to adapt recommendations from the Italian Medical Oncology Association Guideline on PSM. Seven scientific society were involved to form five guideline panels composed of 28 medical professionals from 14 countries. Panelists prioritized 7 relevant questions. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence and summarized information. The panel agreed on seven recommendations., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Surgical Oncology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) represents one of the most common and debilitating effects in patients surviving after cancer treatments. Neurocognitive deficits are important causes of disability and burden in cancer survivors. The true magnitude of CRCI is difficult to define due to significant heterogeneity of literature data. At present, there is no agreement on the gold standard for detection and grading of CRCI in clinical trials, and there is a lack of clear knowledge of its pathophysiology., Objectives: In this review, we aim to discuss some perspectives for future research to pursue in order to cover the gaps in knowledge in the CRCI field., Methods: We focused our literature research on the following relevant issues: neuroradiological correlates of CRCI; objective neuropsychological evaluation and subjective complaint assessment and their correlation with objective measures; timing of assessment; and possible treatments., Results: The correct methodology for evaluating cognitive deficits induced by anti-tumor treatments still requires a definition based on quality scientific evidence, and literature data are currently scarce., Conclusions: This review highlights the need for further research to understand the causes and consequences of cancer-related cognitive impairment using standardized and sensitive measures of cognitive functions and the long-term effects of chemotherapy on cognitive functions and to develop effective interventions.

While recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have suggested superior overall survival (OS) outcomes with segmentectomy over lobectomy, questions remain regarding the comparability of these surgical procedures for treating early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthetize existing evidence and to compare the survival outcomes observed for stage IA NSCLC following segmentectomy or lobectomy. 40 studies (38 observational, 2 RCTs) encompassing 103,926 patients were analyzed. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrences, harvested lymph nodes, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed using established tools, and evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. Non-RCTs showed an OS HR of 1.10 (95 % CI: 0.94-1.30, p = 0.24) with low certainty, contrasting with RCTs' HR of 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.66-1.02, p = 0.7) with moderate certainty. Local recurrences exhibited OR 1.40 (95 % CI: 0.94-2.08, p = 0.09) in non-RCTs with low certainty, and RR 1.61 (95 % CI: 1.12-2.31, p = 0.01) in RCTs with low certainty. Non-RCTs showed DFS HR 1.13 (95 % CI: 0.95-1.34, p = 0.18) with low certainty, while RCTs yielded HR 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.85-1.18, p = 0.97) with moderate certainty. Lobectomy resulted in more harvested lymph nodes. Postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly. While definitive evidence for OS, DFS, and postoperative outcomes differences was inconclusive, a potential increase in local recurrences following lobectomy was noted. Further well-designed studies are warranted to enhance evidence and inform clinical practice in stage I lung cancer surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a clinical practice reference for the management of adult patients with overweight or obesity associated with metabolic complications who are resistant to lifestyle modification., Methods: Surgeons, endocrinologists, gastroenterologists, psychologists, pharmacologists, a general practitioner, a nutritionist, a nurse and a patients' representative acted as multi-disciplinary panel. This GL has been developed following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed by a methodologic group. For each question, the panel identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence. Those classified as "critical" were considered for clinical practice recommendations. Consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations was reached through a majority vote., Results: The present GL provides recommendations about the role of both pharmacological and surgical treatment for the clinical management of the adult patient population with BMI > 27 kg/m 2 and < 40 kg/m 2 associated with weight-related metabolic comorbidities, resistant to lifestyle changes. The panel: suggests the timely implementation of therapeutic interventions in addition to diet and physical activity; recommends the use of semaglutide 2.4 mg/week and suggests liraglutide 3 mg/day in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by diabetes or pre-diabetes; recommends semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; recommends semaglutide 2.4 mg/week as first-line drug in patients with obesity or overweight that require a larger weight loss to reduce comorbidities; suggests the use of orlistat in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by hypertriglyceridemia that assume high-calorie and high-fat diet; suggests the use of naltrexone/bupropion combination in patients with obesity or overweight, with emotional eating; recommends surgical intervention (sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or metabolic gastric bypass/gastric bypass with single anastomosis/gastric mini bypass in patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m 2 who are suitable for metabolic surgery; and suggests gastric banding as a possible, though less effective, surgical alternative., Conclusion: The present GL is directed to all physicians addressing people with obesity-working in hospitals, territorial services or private practice-and to general practitioners and patients. The recommendations should also consider the patient's preferences and the available resources and expertise., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE).)

Background: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cabazitaxel in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients aged ≥80 years, we performed a retrospective study on a sample of patients from 11 Italian cancer centers., Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients aged ≥80 years were treated with cabazitaxel after previous failure with docetaxel; 39 completed a comprehensive geriatric assessment questionnaire (34 fit and 5 vulnerable) and 8 patients (14%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ≥2, while most had a PS of 0-1 (86%). Cabazitaxel was administered at a dose of 25 mg/m 2 in 30 (52%) patients and 20 mg/m 2 or adapted schedules in 27 (48%) patients. These schedules were adopted mainly in patients ≥85 years (75%), with a PS ≥2 (87.5%), and those classified as vulnerable (100%)., Results: The duration of treatment was 4.8 months and was comparable in all subgroups; disease control rate was reported in 36 patients (63%); prostate-specific antigen response was recorded in 18 patients (31.5%). Median overall survival was 13.1 months regardless of age (<85/≥85 years), but overall survival was reduced in vulnerable (7.2 months) and PS ≥ 2 patients (6.8 months). The most frequently documented grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (14%) and diarrhea (10.5%). Six patients (10.5%) dropped out due to severe toxicity., Conclusions: Octogenarian patients can be treated with cabazitaxel with reduced doses or alternative schedules that are associated with less toxicity and fewer treatment interruptions. Comprehensive geriatric assessment could facilitate more appropriate patient selection., Competing Interests: None of the contributing authors has any conflict of interest, including specific financial interests or relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting the duration of ICIs (alone or in combination with standard of care (SoC)) across various solid tumors. Overall, we identified 28,417 records through database searching. Based on the eligibility criteria, 57 studies were identified for the quantitative synthesis, including 22,977 patients receiving ICIs (with or without SoC). Prolonged ICI correlated with better overall survival (OS) than 2yICI in patients with melanoma (HR:1.55; 95%CI: 1.22,1.98), while 2yICI-SoC led to better OS than prolonged ICI-SoC in patients with NSCLC (HR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.68,0.89). Prospective randomized trials are needed to assess the most appropriate duration of ICIs. OBJECTIVE: No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here, we assessed the optimal treatment duration for ICIs in solid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged ICIs administration does not seem to improve the outcomes of patients with NSCLC an RCC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors indicate no financial relationship., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The words "hope" and "cure" were used in a greater number of articles and sentences in narrative and editorial papers than in primary research. Despite concomitant improvements in cancer outcomes, the related reluctance to use these terms in more scientifically oriented original reports may reflect a bias worthy of future exploration. This study aims to survey a group of physicians and cancer patients regarding their perception and use of the word cure., Materials and Method: An anonymous online and print survey was conducted to explore Italian clinicians' (the sample includes medical oncologists, radiotherapists, and oncological surgeons) and cancer patients' approach to the perception and use of the word "cure" in cancer care. The participants received an email informing them of the study's purpose and were invited to participate in the survey via a linked form. A portion, two-thirds, of questionnaires were also administered to patients in the traditional paper form., Results: The survey was completed by 224 clinicians (54 oncologists, 78 radiotherapists, and 92 cancer surgeons) and 249 patients. The results indicate a favourable attitude for patients in favour of a new language ("cured" vs. "complete remission") of the disease experience., Conclusions: The use of the word cured is substantially accepted and equally shared by doctors and patients. Its use can facilitate the elimination of metaphoric implications and toxic cancer-related connotations registered in all cultures that discourage patients from viewing cancer as a disease with varied outcomes, including cure.

To date, we do not know if the excess of the body mass index (BMI) improves or worsens the outcomes in colorectal cancer treatment, and the correlation between BMI and prognosis remains unclear. A recent study in vitro showed a significant negative correlation between BMI and Cetuximab-induced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. On these bases, we tried to analyze the potential correlation between BMI and survival in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and treated with Cetuximab. Retrospective data were collected from 132 patients affected by mCRC treated with Cetuximab in monotherapy or association with chemotherapy between January 2007 and October 2019. The cohort of patients was divided into different groups according to the World Health Organization (WHO) BMI classification: underweight (BMI < 18.59), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9,) overweight (BMI 25-29.9), and obese (BMI > 30), and we observed the influence of BMI on survival and treatment response. Patients with BMI ≥ 25 had statistically significantly better survival than patients BMI < 25 (19 vs 10 months, p = 0.025). Dividing the sample into the four WHO BMI categories, the best survival rates were seen in the overweight and obese subgroups (18 and 26 months respectively, p < 0.01). The multivariate analysis confirmed BMI as the only parameter able to influence survival. No correlation between BMI and treatment response was seen between BMI ≥ 25 and BMI ≤ 24 groups (p = 0.14). Our experience suggests that mild obese and overweight patients treated with Cetuximab could experience a better survival. We also observed that among normal weight, overweight, and mild obese patients, there is a better response to immunochemotherapy in comparison with underweight patients, but this difference does not reach a significative statistical value., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The early crossing of survival curves in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with immune checkpoint blockers suggests an excess of mortality in the first months of treatment. However, the exact estimation of the early death (ED) rate, the comparison between ED upon immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) alone or in combination with other agents and the impact of tumour type, and PD-L1 expression on ED are unknown., Methods: RCTs comparing ICI alone (ICI-only group) or in combination with other non-ICI therapies (ICI-OT group) (experimental arms) versus non-ICI treatments (control arm) were included. ED was defined as death within the first 3 months of treatment. The primary outcome was the comparison of ED between experimental and control arms, and the secondary outcome was the comparison of ED risk between ICI-only and ICI-OT. ED rates estimated by risk ratio (RR) were pooled by random effect model., Results: A total of 56 RCTs (40,215 participants, 14 cancer types) were included. ED occurred in 14.2% and 6.7% of patients in ICI-only and ICI-OT groups, respectively. ED risk significantly increased with ICI-only (RR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.57) versus non-ICI therapies, while it was lower with ICI-OT versus non-ICI treatments (RR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90). ED risk was significantly higher upon ICI-only compared to ICI-OT (RR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.26-1.95). Gastric and urothelial carcinoma were at higher risk of ED. PD-L1 expression and ICI drug classes were not associated with ED., Conclusions: ED upon first-line ICI is a clinically relevant phenomenon across solid malignancies, not predictable by PD-L1 expression but preventable through the addition of other treatments to ICI., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Prof Matteo Lambertini: advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Astrazeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight. Dr Raimondo Di Liello: consultant Janssen, educational Astellas. Dr Martina Imbimbo: independent safety board member for Immatics. Dr Carminia Maria Della Corte: advisory board for MSD and Astrazeneca. Prof Floriana Morgillo: BMS, MSD, Astrazeneca, Incyte (Consultory/Advisory relationship). Dr Giuseppe Lo Russo: personal fees from AstraZeneca, Italfarmaco, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; support for attending meetings/travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Italfarmaco, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; and participation as a DSMB or advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi. Dr Claudia Proto: personal fees from BMS and MSD. Dr Arsela Prelaj: personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca and BMS. Dr Diego Signorelli: personal fees from Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. Prof Fortunato Ciardiello: Merck, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, Symphogen, Pfizer (Consultant/Avisory relationship), Roche, Merck, Amgen, Bayer, Ipsen (Research funding). Dr Nathalie Chaput: sponsored research from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, Sanofi, Cytune Pharma, Gilead, Servier. Lectures and educational activities: Gilead and Servier. Dr Jordi Remon: advisory board: MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Astrazeneca, Roche; Bayer, Janssen. Speaker: Pfizer, Janssen; travel reimbursement: Ose immunotherapeutics, BMS, Astrazeneca, Roche. Prof Benjamin Besse: grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Onxeo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Inivata, AbbVie, Amgen, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Ignyta, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Nektar, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Therapeutics, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, OSE Immunotherapeutics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Servier, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. Prof Filippo De Braud: Consultant Advisory Board: Roche, EMD Serono, NMS Nerviano Medical Science, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis, Incyte, BMS, Menarini. Speaker: BMS, Healthcare Research & Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck Group, ACCMED, Nadirex, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi, Roche, AMGEN, Incyte, Dephaforum. Principal Investigator for Novartis, F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd, BMS, Ignyta Operating INC, Merck Sharp & Dohme Spa, Kymab, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD, MedImmune LCC, Exelixis Inc., LOXO Oncology Incorporated, DAICHI SANKIO Dev. Limited, Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, Janssen-Cilag International NV, Merck KGAA. Prof Marina Chiara Garassino: personal financial interests with the following organisations: AstraZeneca, MSD International GmbH, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S. p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; institutional financial interests with the following organisations: Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer (MISP), AstraZeneca, MSD International GmbH, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S. p.A, Celgene, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tiziana, Foundation Medicine; funding from the following organisations: AIRC, AIFA, Italian Moh, TRANSCAN. All the other authors have no conflicts to declare. Dr Roberto Ferrara: advisory board for Beigene and MSD. All the other authors (Dr Giuseppe Viscardi, Dr Antonino Carmelo Tralongo, Dr Francesco Massari, Dr Veronica Mollica, Dr Alessandro Rizzo, Dr Francesca Comito, Dr Salvatore Alfieri, Dr Vittorio Simeon, Dr Alessandro De Toma, Dr Giulia Galli, Dr Valter Torri, Dr Michela Cinquini) have no conflicts to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Germ cell tumors arise in childhood but peak at around 30 years of age. They are the most common cancers in males under the age of 35. Over 95% arise in the testes while a minority originate in extragonadal sites such as the anterior mediastinum, or mainly in childhood the pineal gland or the sacrococcygeal area. These tumors show an extraordinary sensitivity to chemotherapy (and for seminoma, also to radiation) and cure rates are relatively high even in second or subsequent relapses. Very few data are present in the literature regarding patients diagnosed after 50 years and no specific trials have been conducted in this setting. Nearly all patients reported in the literature had testicular cancers, with occasional reports of extragonadal tumors. Despite the fact that > 50 years may be considered an "elderly" population, these patients are treated with the same cisplatin containing combinations as their younger counterparts with consequent higher toxicity. In this review we will present epidemiological and clinical data from this rare population of patients with testicular cancer., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Secondino, Rosti, Tralongo, Nolè, Alaimo, Carminati, Naspro and Pedrazzoli.)

Aging is a well-recognized risk factor for the development of cancer. The incidence of new cancer diagnoses has increased globally given the rising senior population. Many hypotheses for this increased risk have been postulated over decades, including increased genetic and epigenetic mutations and the concept of immunosenescence. The optimal treatment strategies for this population with cancer are unclear. Older cancer patients are traditionally under-represented in clinical trials developed to set the standard of care, leading to undertreatment or increased toxicity. With this background, it is crucial to investigate new opportunities that belong to the most recent findings of an anti-cancer agent, such as immune-checkpoint inhibitors, to manage these daily clinical issues and eventually combine them with alternative administration strategies of antiblastic drugs such as metronomic chemotherapy.

Anthracyclines are extensively used in oncologic patients, in particular for breast cancer and hematological malignancies. Cardiac injury is a potentially dangerous side effect of these drugs. In this systematic review, we analyzed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess if potential cardioprotective drugs (i.e., renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [RAAS] blockers and β-blockers) may prevent heart damage by anthracyclines. Studies were identified by electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE database until August 2020. The impact of cardioprotective drugs to prevent anthracyclines-induced cardiac injury was expressed as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 statistic. Twelve RCTs for a total of 1.035 cancer patients treated with anthracyclines were included. RAAS blockers, β-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists showed a statistically significant benefit in preventing left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reduction (MD 3.57, 95% CI 1.04, 6.09) in 11 studies. A non-statistically significant difference was observed in preventing E/A velocity decrease (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00, 0.17; 9 studies), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) increase (MD - 0.88, 95% CI, - 2.75,0.99; 6 studies), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) increase (MD -0.95, 95% CI - 2.67,0.76; 6 studies), and mitral A velocity decrease (MD - 1.42, 95% CI - 3.01,0.17; 4 studies). Heart failure was non-significantly reduced in the cardioprotective arm (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06, 1.59; 5 studies). Hypotension was non-significantly increased in the cardioprotective arm (OR 3.91, 95% CI 0.42, 36.46, 3 studies). Cardioprotective drugs reduce anthracycline-induced cardiac damage as assessed by echocardiographic parameters. The clinical relevance of this positive effect is still to be defined.

Neutropenia is the most frequent side effect of commercially available myelosuppressive drugs and its most significant complication is febrile neutropenia. It is associated with increased hospital admissions and higher probability of death. Prophylaxis with the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can prevent neutropenia caused by anticancer drugs. The correct administration of these drugs and the management of febrile neutropenia are extremely important in the treatment of patients with cancer.

CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. With advances in treatment, colorectal cancer is being transformed from a deadly disease to an illness that is increasingly curable. With this transformation has come increased interest in the unique problems, risks, needs, and concerns of survivors who have completed treatment and are cancer-free. They often suffer late/long-term side effects of therapies that may compromise their QoL such as fatigue, sleep difficulty, fear of recurrence, anxiety, depression, negative body image, sensory neuropathy, gastrointestinal problems, urinary incontinence, and sexual dysfunction. In this review, we discuss what is known about early colorectal diagnosis, staging, treatments and their long-term effects on quality of life and survivorship care., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Over the last 15 years, we have seen a huge expansion of the development of drugs directed against biomolecular targets within breast cancer cells. The over-expression of certain receptors (ER, PgR, HER-2, VEGF-R), as well as alteration of several intracellular signal transduction pathways (the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway, MEK-MAPK pathway, loss of PTEN, etc ...) has a great impact on the likelihood of recurrence and progression of the disease, influencing the natural history of breast cancer. The recent biomolecular classification of breast cancer (Luminal A / B, HER2- driven, Basal Like) allowed finally to identify specific treatments against molecular target to associate or not to traditional chemotherapy, and to use in relation to the prognosis of the disease. In the following paragraphs, we will set out the major targeted drug that have received indications in breast cancer, both in the localized and in advanced disease, referring to the specific target (hormonal receptors, HER2, VEGF, m-TOR, PARP etc ...)., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)