Search

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, causing a significant mortality worldwide. Different endocrine strategies are available for the treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer, including antiestrogen tamoxifen and fulvestrant, as well as third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs), such as letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane. In this review, we will focus on exemestane, its clinical use, and its side effects. Exemestane is a steroidal thirdgeneration AI now used in all treatment settings for breast cancer. In the metastatic disease, it has been extensively investigated as the first-, second-, and further-line treatment and it is now registered for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer whose disease has progressed following antiestrogen therapy. A potential lack of cross-resistance with nonsteroidal AIs has been described, giving additional therapeutic opportunities in sequences of endocrine agents. Exemestane is also approved for the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal early breast cancer, either as upfront monotherapy for 5 years, as a switch following 2-3 years of tamoxifen, or as extended therapy beyond 5 years of adjuvant treatment. New promising data also showed a beneficial effect in young premenopausal early breast cancer patients, when administered together with ovarian suppression. Interesting results have also emerged when exemestane has been investigated as neodjuvant treatment as well as preventive agent in healthy women at high risk for breast cancer. Exemestane is generally well tolerated, with a side effect profile similar to that of other AIs, including menopausal symptoms, arthralgia, and bone loss. In conclusion, exemestane can be considered an effective and well-tolerated endocrine treatment option for all stages of breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Testicular tumour is the most common malignancy in young men. The diagnostic work-up is mainly based on morphological imaging. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of F-FDG PET/CT in patients with testicular tumour. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients studied by F-FDG PET/CT at our centre. Inclusion criteria were: pathological confirmation of testicular tumour, contrast-enhanced CT scan performed within a month of the PET/CT scan, and clinical/imaging follow-up performed at the Oncology Unit of our hospital. Overall, 56 patients were enrolled and 121 PET/CT scans were evaluated. F-FDG PET/CT was performed following standard procedures and the results were compared with clinical, imaging and follow-up data. Clinicians were contacted to enquire whether the PET/CT scan influenced the patient's management. Answers were scored as follows: start/continue chemotherapy or radiotherapy, indication for surgery of secondary lesions, and clinical surveillance. Results: On a scan basis, 51 seminoma and 70 nonseminoma (NS) cases were reviewed. Of the 121 cases. 32 were found to be true-positive, 74 true-negative, 8 false-positive and 6 false-negative by PET/CT. PET/CT showed good sensitivity and specificity for seminoma lesion detection (92 % and 84 %, respectively), but its sensitivity was lower for NS forms (sensitivity and specificity 77 % and 95 %, respectively). The PET/CT scan influenced the clinical management of 47 of 51 seminomas (in 6 chemotherapy was started/continued, in 3 radiotherapy was started/continued, in 2 surgery of secondary lesions was performed, and in 36 clinical surveillance was considered appropriate), and 59 of 70 NS (in 18 therapy/surgery was started/continued, and in 41 clinical surveillance was considered appropriate). Conclusion: Our preliminary data demonstrate the potential usefulness of PET/CT for the assessment of patients with testicular tumour. It provides valuable information for the clinical management, particularly for clinical surveillance, post-therapy assessment and when relapse is suspected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "F-FDG PET/CT impact on testicular tumours clinical management" that was published in the December 18, 2013 is presented.

In spite of careful intraoperative precautions and gauze counts, mistakes can still occur during surgery. In the case reported, a retained gauze leaved during a surgical approach for removing a solid-cystic papillary tumor localized in the pancreatic tail, caused both persistent abdominal discomfort and the presence of an abdominal cystic lesion at imaging techniques. When a previous operative history is present, a foreign body should be taken into account in the differential diagnosis of a patient with an intra-abdominal cystic mass. Finally, radio-opaque marker should be routinely used by surgeons in order to reach a correct diagnosis in operated patients having retained gauze.