Search

Purpose: Patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure (CIOFF) may experience ovarian function recovery (OFR). Earlier, we showed that OFR during treatment with anastrozole impacted the prognosis of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) patients with CIOFF. Here, we present the long-term follow-up results., Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR+ BC who were 45-57 years of age and received chemotherapy were identified from the phase 3 DATA study (NCT00301457) on the extended use of anastrozole. Eligible patients were categorised into two groups: patients with CIOFF and definitely postmenopausal patients. Patients with CIOFF were monitored for OFR. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with OFR and patients without OFR using multivariable Cox regression analyses, including OFR as a time-dependent covariate. BC-specific mortality (BCSM) was compared between groups using the Fine and Gray method., Results: This study included 656 patients: 395 patients with CIOFF and 261 definitely postmenopausal patients. OFR occurred in 39 (12%) of 329 patients with CIOFF who were monitored for OFR. The median follow-up time was 13.3 years. Patients with OFR experienced a deterioration in DFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-2.81), DRFS (HR = 1.51; 95% CI 0.73-3.11), OS (HR = 1.64; 95% CI 0.75-3.55), and BCSM (subdistribution HR = 1.98; 95% CI 0.84-4.63) when compared with patients without OFR., Conclusion: In patients with CIOFF, OFR during treatment with anastrozole was associated with a deterioration in BC outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of adequate ovarian function suppression in this subgroup of patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Recent studies have reported a higher than expected risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) and a single dose of electron beam intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT). This finding was the rationale to perform a retrospective single center cohort study evaluating the oncologic results of consecutive patients treated with BCS and IORT. Women were eligible if they had clinical low-risk (N0, ≤2 cm unifocal, Bloom and Richardson grade 1-2), estrogen receptor-positive and human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative breast cancer. Prior to BCS, pN0 status was determined by sentinel lymph node biopsy. Data on oncologic follow-up were analyzed. Between 2012 and 2019, 306 consecutive patients were treated and analyzed, with a median age of 67 (50-86) years at diagnosis. Median follow-up was 60 (8-120) months. Five-year cumulative risk of IBTR was 13.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.4-17.4). True in field recurrence was present in 3.9% of the patients. In 4.6% of the patients, the IBRT was classified as a local recurrence due to seeding of tumor cells in the cutis or subcutis most likely related to percutaneous biopsy. In 2.9% of the patients, the IBRT was a new outfield primary tumor. Three patients had a regional lymph node recurrence and two had distant metastases as first event. One breast cancer-related death was observed. Estimated 5-year overall survival was 89.8% (95% CI 86.0-93.6). In conclusion, although some of IBTR cases could have been prevented by adaptations in biopsy techniques and patient selection, BCS followed by IORT was associated with a substantial risk of IBTR., (© 2024 UICC.)

Background: The first aim of this study was to examine trends in the risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A second aim was to analyse the association between DCIS grade and the risk of iIBC following BCS., Patients and Methods: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, the Netherlands Cancer Registry collected information on 25,719 women with DCIS diagnosed in the period 1989-2021 who underwent BCS. Of these 19,034 received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression models were used., Results: A total of 1135 patients experienced iIBC. Ten-year cumulative incidence rates of iIBC for patients diagnosed in the periods 1989-1998, 1999-2008 and 2009-2021 undergoing BCS without RT, were 12.6%, 9.0% and 5.0% (P < 0.001), respectively. For those undergoing BCS with RT these figures were 5.7%, 3.7% and 2.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). In the multivariable analyses, DCIS grade was not associated with the risk of iIBC., Conclusion: Since 1989 the risk of iIBC has decreased substantially and has become even lower than the risk of invasive contralateral breast cancer. No significant association of DCIS grade with iIBC was found, stressing the need for more powerful prognostic factors to guide the treatment of DCIS., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: The aim of the present study was to report the 5-year axillary recurrence-free interval (aRFI) in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients treated according to a de-escalating axillary treatment protocol after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST)., Methods: All patients diagnosed in two hospitals between October 2014 and March 2021 were identified retrospectively. Data on diagnostic workup, treatment and follow-up was collected. Adjuvant axillary treatment was considered based on the initial staging using 18F-FDG PET/CT and the results of axillary lymph node marking with a radioactive-iodine seed protocol or a targeted axillary dissection procedure. Follow-up was updated until 27th April 2024. Kaplan-Meier curves were calculated to report the 5-year aRFI with corresponding 95 % confident intervals (95%-CI)., Results: A total of 199 patients were included. Axillary pathological complete response was reported in 66 (33.2 %). Based on the treatment protocol and initial clinical staging, no adjuvant axillary treatment was indicated in 30 patients (15 %), while 139 (70 %) received axillary radiotherapy without performance of an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The remaining 30 patients (15 %) underwent an ALND with additional locoregional radiotherapy. A median follow-up of 62 months (30-106) showed that 4 (2 %) patients experienced an axillary recurrence after 7, 8, 36 and 36 months, respectively. In all 4 patients, synchronous distant metastases were diagnosed. The estimated 5-year aRFI was 97.8 % (95%-CI 95.6-99.9 %) CONCLUSION: Although longer follow-up should be awaited before final conclusions can be drawn regarding the oncological safety of this approach, the implementation of a de-escalating axillary treatment protocol appears to be safe since the estimated 5-year aRFI is 97.8 %., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare to have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Aims: This nationwide study provides an overview of trends and variations in radiotherapy use as part of multimodal treatment of invasive non-metastatic breast cancer in the Netherlands in 2008-2019., Materials and Methods: Women with invasive non-metastatic breast cancer were selected from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatments trends were presented over time. Factors associated with (1) boost irradiation in breast-conserving therapy and (2) regional radiotherapy instead of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in N+ disease were identified using multilevel logistic regression analyses., Results: Radiotherapy use increased from 61% (2008) to 70% (2016), caused by breast-conserving therapy instead of mastectomy, increased post-mastectomy radiotherapy, and increased regional radiotherapy (32% in 2011 to 61% in 2019) instead of ALND in N+ disease. Omission of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in 2016-2019 (4-9%, respectively), mainly in elderly, decreased overall radiotherapy use to 67%. Radiotherapy treatment was further de-escalated by decreased boost irradiation in breast-conserving therapy (66% in 2011 to 37% in 2019) and partial (1% in 2011 to 6% in 2019) instead of whole breast irradiation following BCS. Boost irradiation was associated with high-risk features: younger age (OR>75 vs <50:0.04, 95%CI:0.03-0.05), higher grade (OR grade III vs I:11.46, 95%CI:9.90-13.26) and residual disease (OR focal residual vs R0-resection:28.08, 95%CI:23.07-34.17). Variation across the country was found for both boost irradiation use (OR South vs North:0.58, 95%CI:0.49-0.68), and regional radiotherapy instead of ALND (OR Southwest vs North:0.55, 95%CI:0.37-0.80)., Conclusion: Overall radiotherapy use increased in 2008-2016, while a decreasing trend was observed after 2016, caused by post-BCS radiotherapy omission. Boost irradiation in breast-conserving therapy became omitted in low-risk patients, and regional radiotherapy use increased as an alternative for ALND in N+ disease., (Copyright © 2024 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: No studies are available in which changes over time in characteristics and prognosis of patients with interval breast cancers (ICs) and screen-detected breast cancers (SDCs) have been compared. The aim was to study these trends between 1995 and 2018., Methods: All women with invasive SDCs (N = 4290) and ICs (N = 1352), diagnosed in a southern mammography screening region in the Netherlands, were included and followed until date of death or 31 December 2022., Results: The 5-year overall survival rate of women with SDCs increased from 91.4% for those diagnosed in 1995-1999 to 95.0% for those diagnosed in 2013-2018 (P < 0.001), and from 74.8 to 91.6% (P < 0.001) in the same periods for those with ICs. A similar trend was observed for the 10-year survival rates. After adjustment for changes in tumour characteristics, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.59) for women with SDCs diagnosed in the period 2013-2018, compared to the women diagnosed in the period 1995-1999. For the women with ICs this HR was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.19-0.40)., Conclusion: The prognosis of women with ICs has improved rapidly since 1995 and is now almost similar to that of women with SDCs., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Obesity has been associated with an adverse prognosis and reduced efficacy of endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). This study determines the prognostic and predictive effect of body mass index (BMI) on the disease-free survival (DFS) of postmenopausal HR+ BC patients., Methods: Patients were identified from the DATA study (NCT00301457), a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 6 vs 3 years of anastrozole after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with HR+ BC. Patients were classified as normal weight (BMI: 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (≥30.0 kg/m2). The primary endpoint was DFS, evaluated from randomization (prognostic analyses) or 3 years after randomization onwards (predictive analyses; aDFS) using multivariable Cox regression analyses. P-values were 2-sided., Results: This study included 678 normal weight, 712 overweight, and 391 obese patients. After a median follow-up of 13.1 years, overweight and obesity were identified as negative prognostic factors for DFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.97 to 1.38 and HR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.54, respectively). The adverse prognostic effect of BMI was observed in women aged younger than 60 years, but not in women aged 60 years or older (P-interaction = .009). The effect of extended anastrozole on aDFS was similar in normal weight (HR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.35), overweight (HR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.98), and obese patients (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.36) (P-interaction = .24)., Conclusion: In this study among 1781 HR+ BC patients, overweight and obesity were adverse prognostic factors for DFS. BMI did not impact the efficacy of extended anastrozole., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

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

Background: The DATA study evaluated the use of two different durations of anastrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of tamoxifen. We hereby present the follow-up analysis, which was performed after all patients reached a minimum follow-up of 10 years beyond treatment divergence., Methods: The open-label, randomised, phase 3 DATA study was performed in 79 hospitals in the Netherlands (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00301457). Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment were assigned to either 3 or 6 years of anastrozole (1 mg orally once a day). Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by hormone receptor status, nodal status, HER2 status, and prior tamoxifen duration. The primary outcome was adapted disease-free survival, defined as disease-free survival from 3 years after randomisation onwards. Adapted overall survival was assessed as a secondary outcome. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat design., Findings: Between June 28, 2006, and August 10, 2009, 1912 patients were randomly assigned to 3 years (n = 955) or 6 years (n = 957) of anastrozole. Of these, 1660 patients were eligible and disease-free at 3 years after randomisation. The 10-year adapted disease-free survival was 69.2% (95% CI 55.8-72.3) in the 6-year group (n = 827) and 66.0% (95% CI 62.5-69.2) in the 3-year group (n = 833) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.01; p = 0.073). The 10-year adapted overall survival was 80.9% (95% CI 77.9-83.5) in the 6-year group and 79.2% (95% CI 76.2-81.9) in the 3-year group (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75-1.16; p = 0.53)., Interpretation: Extended aromatase inhibition beyond 5 years of sequential endocrine therapy did not improve the adapted disease-free survival and adapted overall survival of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: VCGT-H reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work; grants and personal fees from Novartis and Lilly; grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Gilead outside the submitted work. VCGT-H has a consulting role for AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Novartis. SWML reports grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants from Lilly outside the submitted work. SMEG reports grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, and Gilead; personal fees from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. IJHV reports grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants from Pfizer and Lilly outside the submitted work. ACPS and ALTI report grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. CHS is chair of the Board of Dutch national breast cancer guidelines. JRK reports grants from AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, Lilly, and GSK outside the submitted work. JRK has been a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board member for the Alison trial (UMCG) and the TEIPP trial (EMC). AHH reports grants from the Dutch Breast Cancer Research Group during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. AHH has been an Advisory Board member for Lilly. AHH received support from Pfizer to attend the ESMO 2022 congress. SCL reports grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work; grants from Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMW, A Sister's Hope [Z]aan de Wandel, and Agendia outside the submitted work; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, ERC (EU), and NWO (Dutch Research Council); payment or honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo; other financial support for attending meetings from Daiichi Sankyo, ESMO, ERC (EU), and NWO (Dutch Research Council); non-financial support from Genentech (drug), Roche (drug), Gilead Sciences (drug), Novartis (drug), Agendia (gene expression tests), and AstraZeneca (drug). SCL has a patent (UN23A01/P-EP) pending on a method for assessing homologous recombination deficiency in ovarian cancer cells. SCL is chair of the Trial Steering Committee of the PIONEER trial (Cambridge University) and Member of the Health Council of the Netherlands – Independent scientific advisory body for government and parliament. The other authors have declared no conflicts of interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Hormonal receptor (HR) positive breast tumors are common. Adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) with tamoxifen or Aromatase Inhibitors (AIs) is beneficial depending on the stage of the tumor. Despite the fact that AHT has been shown to improve survival and recurrence, Dutch adherence rates, which were mostly dependent on Tamoxifen prescriptions until 2006, plummeted from 80% after one year to 50% after five years. Nonadherence with AHT reduces its effectiveness. This research presents more recent adherence statistics (from 2006 to 2016), on a larger sample (7,996 vs 1,451), as well as factors that influence AHT adherence. In addition to tamoxifen data, AIs are now included., Objective: As low use of adjuvant endocrine therapy is a potentially important and modifiable risk factor for poor outcome, it is important to monitor the rate as an indicator of women's burden of disease and the direction of adherence trends., Methods: The Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) was used to find women with early-stage breast cancer who started AHT within a year of surgery and were linked to the PHARMO Database Network (n = 8,679). The Kaplan-Meier approach was used to measure AHT adherence five years after treatment was started, with a 60-day gap between refills as our primary outcome. Furthermore, the Medication Possession Rate (MPR) was determined using a cutoff of ≥80%. Analysis was performed on influential factors of adherence., Results: The proportion of persistent women declined over time to reach 46.6% at the end of the fifth year and 53.3% of the women had a MPR ≥80% during the fifth year. Older and being diagnosed in 2006-2010 were associated with AHT adherence., Conclusion: Dutch 5-year AHT adherence appears to remain poor. Improving AHT adherence in HR+ breast cancer survivors is a critical medical need.

Purpose: This population-based study describes nationwide trends and variation in the use of primary radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer in The Netherlands in 2008-2019., Methods: Prostate cancer patients were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 103,059). Treatment trends were studied over time by prognostic risk groups. Multilevel analyses were applied to identify variables associated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease, and EBRT versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate and high-risk disease., Results: EBRT use remained stable (5-6%) in low-risk prostate cancer and increased from 21% to 32% in intermediate-risk, 37% to 45% in high-risk localized and 50% to 57% in high-risk locally advanced disease. Brachy-monotherapy decreased from 19% to 6% and from 15% to 10% in low and intermediate-risk disease, respectively, coinciding an increase of no active treatment from 55% to 73% in low-risk disease. Use of EBRT or brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease differed by region, T-stage and patient characteristics. Hospital characteristics were not associated with treatment in low-risk disease, except for availability of brachy-monotherapy in 2008-2013. Age, number of comorbidities, travel time for EBRT, prognostic risk group, and hospital characteristics were associated with EBRT versus prostatectomy in intermediate and high-risk disease., Conclusion: Intermediate/high-risk PCa was increasingly managed with EBRT, while brachy-monotherapy in low/intermediate-risk PCa decreased. In low-risk PCa, the no active treatment-approach increased. Variation in treatment suggests treatment decision related to patient/disease characteristics. In intermediate/high-risk disease, variation seems furthermore related to the treatment modalities available in the diagnosing hospitals., 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 © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported., Methods: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial., Results: Between April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer., Competing Interests: Marc G. BesselinkResearch Funding: Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Oncosil, Viatris Ronald M. van DamResearch Funding: Abbott Laboratories (Inst) Ferry A. L. M. EskensHonoraria: Servier, AstraZeneca/MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Roche, Eisai, IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Ipsen Jan Willem B. de GrootConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier Bas Groot KoerkampResearch Funding: Tricumed (Inst) Ignace H. de HinghResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), QP&S/RanD (Inst) Marjolein Y. V. HomsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier Jeanin E. van HooftConsulting or Advisory Role: Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic, Olympus Medical Systems Judith de Vos-GeelenConsulting or Advisory Role: Servier, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, AmgenResearch Funding: Servier (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier Johanna W. WilminkConsulting or Advisory Role: Servier, Celgene, MerckSpeakers' Bureau: MedscapeResearch Funding: Servier, Celgene, Novartis, AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer/EMD Serono (Inst), Roche (Inst), Merck (Inst) Aeilko H. ZwindermanConsulting or Advisory Role: Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Cornelis J. PuntConsulting or Advisory Role: Nordic Bioscience (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: To analyze the effect of radiation dose escalation to the primary tumor on local tumor control in definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) for patients with esophageal cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with medically inoperable and/or irresectable esophageal carcinoma, referred for dCRT, were randomly assigned between a standard dose (SD) of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy for 5.5 weeks to the tumor and regional lymph nodes and a high dose (HD) up to a total dose of 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor. Chemotherapy consisted of courses of concurrent carboplatin (area under the curve 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m 2 ) in both arms once a week for 6 weeks. The primary end point was local progression-free survival., Results: Between September 2012 and June 2018, 260 patients were included. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was present in 61% of patients, and 39% had adenocarcinoma (AC). Radiation treatment was completed by 94%, and 85% had at least five courses of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for all patients was 50 months. The 3-year local progression-free survival (LPFS) was 70% in the SD arm versus 73% in the HD arm (not significant). The LPFS for SCC and AC was 75% versus 79% and 61% versus 61% for SD and HD, respectively (not significant). The 3-year locoregional progression-free survival was 52% and 59% for the SD and HD arms, respectively ( P = .08). Overall, grade 4 and 5 common toxicity criteria were 12% and 5% in the SD arm versus 14% and 10% in the HD arm, respectively ( P = .15)., Conclusion: In dCRT for esophageal cancer, radiation dose escalation up to 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor did not result in a significant increase in local control over 50.4 Gy. The absence of a dose effect was observed in both AC and SCC., Competing Interests: Mark I. van Berge HenegouwenConsulting or Advisory Role: Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Mylan, Alesi SurgicalResearch Funding: Olympus, StrykerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Johnson & Johnson Jeanin E. van HooftConsulting or Advisory Role: Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Medtronic, Olympus Medical Systems Hanneke W. M. van LaarhovenConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly/ImClone, Nordic Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, ServierResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer Schering Pharma, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Nordic Group, Philips Healthcare, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier, Merck KGaATravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZenecaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Data on effectiveness and optimal use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) in clinically biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer is lacking. This study examined the incidence of axillary pathological complete response (pCR) on NET in clinically biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer patients. Secondary, patient and tumour characteristics, as well as the optimal duration of NET in relation to the occurrence of axillary pCR were investigated., Material and Methods: Patients diagnosed with primary hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer between 2014 and 2019, with at least one positive axillary lymph node (pathologically proven), treated with NET were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The incidence of axillary pCR in combination with patient, tumour and treatment characteristics was analysed., Results: In a population of 561 patients, an axillary pCR of 7.3% on NET was observed. Median length of treatment was 8.1 months in the patients without vs. 8.8 months in those with axillary pCR, with no statistically significant difference. A p-value <0.30 was found for age, histologic type, clinical tumour status, hormone receptor status and the type of NET in univariable analysis. After multivariable logistic regression analyses, none of these variables were independently associated with the likelihood of an axillary pCR., Conclusion: The rate of axillary pCR after NET in HR + HER2-clinically biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer patients is low. Factors independently associated with the likelihood of an axillary pCR could not be identified. More research is warranted regarding optimizing the duration of NET and the prognostic value of residual disease in the axilla after NET., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest We declare to have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to the chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer followed by surgery study (CROSS) has become a standard of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer. We aimed to assess long-term outcome of this regimen., Methods: From 2004 through 2008, we randomly assigned 366 patients to either five weekly cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week) followed by surgery, or surgery alone. Follow-up data were collected through 2018. Cox regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival, cause-specific survival, and risks of locoregional and distant relapse. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy beyond 5 years of follow-up was tested with time-dependent Cox regression and landmark analyses., Results: The median follow-up was 147 months (interquartile range, 134-157). Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.89). The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival was not time-dependent ( P value for interaction, P = .73), and landmark analyses suggested a stable effect on overall survival up to 10 years of follow-up. The absolute 10-year overall survival benefit was 13% (38% v 25%). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reduced risk of death from esophageal cancer (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80). Death from other causes was similar between study arms (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.99). Although a clear effect on isolated locoregional (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.72) and synchronous locoregional plus distant relapse (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.72) persisted, isolated distant relapse was comparable (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.13)., Conclusion: The overall survival benefit of patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer who receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to CROSS persists for at least 10 years., Competing Interests: Mark I. Van Berge HenegouwenConsulting or Advisory Role: Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Mylan, Alesi SurgicalResearch Funding: Olympus, StrykerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Johnson & Johnson Hanneke W. M. Van LaarhovenConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly/ImClone, Nordic Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, ServierResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer Schering Pharma, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Nordic Group, Philips Healthcare, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier, Merck KGaATravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Grard A. P. NieuwenhuijzenHonoraria: Medtronic, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: MedtronicResearch Funding: Medtronic Geke A. P. HospersConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, MSD, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, NovartisResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Seerave Foundation Cornelis J. A. PuntConsulting or Advisory Role: Nordic Bioscience Henk M. W. VerheulConsulting or Advisory Role: Glycostem Ewout W. SteyerbergPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties from Springer for a book “Clinical Prediction Models”No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: To spare DCIS patients from overtreatment, treatment de-escalated over the years. This study evaluates the influence of these developments on the patterns of care in the treatment of DCIS with particular interest in the use of breast conserving surgery (BCS), radiotherapy following BCS and the use and type of axillary staging., Methods: In this large population-based cohort study all women, aged 50-74 years diagnosed with DCIS from January 1989 until January 2019, were analyzed per two-year cohort., Results: A total of 30,417 women were diagnosed with DCIS. The proportion of patients undergoing BCS increased from 47.7% in 1995-1996 to 72.7% in 2017-2018 (p < 0.001). Adjuvant radiotherapy following BCS increased from 28.9% (1995-1996) to 89.6% (2011-2012) and subsequently decreased to 74.9% (2017-2018; p < 0.001). Since its introduction, the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) increased to 63.1% in 2013-2014 and subsequently decreased to 52.8% in 2017-2018 (p < 0.001). Axillary surgery is already omitted in 55.8% of the patients undergoing BCS nowadays. The five-year invasive relapse-free survival (iRFS) for BCS with adjuvant radiotherapy in the period 1989-2010, was 98.7% [CI 98.4% - 99.0%], compared to 95.0% [CI 94.1% -95.8%] for BCS only (p < 0.001). In 2011-2018, this was 99.3% [CI 99.1% - 99.5%] and 98.8% [CI 98.2% - 99.4%] respectively (p = 0.01)., Conclusions: This study shows a shift toward less extensive treatment. DCIS is increasingly treated with BCS and less often followed by additional radiotherapy. The absence of radiotherapy still results in excellent iRFS. Axillary surgery is increasingly omitted in DCIS patients.

Purpose: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may improve the radical resection rate for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but the overall benefit is unproven., Patients and Methods: In this randomized phase III trial in 16 centers, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy, which consisted of 3 courses of gemcitabine, the second combined with 15 × 2.4 Gy radiotherapy, followed by surgery and 4 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine or to immediate surgery and 6 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary end point was overall survival by intention to treat., Results: Between April 2013 and July 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned; 119 were assigned to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 127 to immediate surgery. Median overall survival by intention to treat was 16.0 months with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 14.3 months with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.05; P = .096). The resection rate was 61% and 72% ( P = .058). The R0 resection rate was 71% (51 of 72) in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 40% (37 of 92) in patients assigned to immediate surgery ( P < .001). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly better disease-free survival and locoregional failure-free interval as well as with significantly lower rates of pathologic lymph nodes, perineural invasion, and venous invasion. Survival analysis of patients who underwent tumor resection and started adjuvant chemotherapy showed improved survival with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (35.2 v 19.8 months; P = . 029). The proportion of patients who suffered serious adverse events was 52% versus 41% ( P = . 096)., Conclusion: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer did not show a significant overall survival benefit. Although the outcomes of the secondary end points and predefined subgroup analyses suggest an advantage of the neoadjuvant approach, additional evidence is required.

Purpose: The phase III DATA study compared 6 and 3 years of adjuvant anastrozole following 2-3 years of tamoxifen in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. This pre-planned side-study assessed the relationship between a reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), and evaluated the effect of bisphosphonates on DRFS., Methods: We selected all patients with a BMD measurement within 3 years after randomisation (landmark) without any DRFS events. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards models were used for analyses., Results: Of 1860 eligible patients, 1142 had a DEXA scan before the landmark. The BMD was normal in 436 (38.2%) and showed osteopenia in 565 (49.5%) and osteoporosis in 141 (12.3%) patients. After a median follow-up of 5.0 years from the landmark, neither osteopenia nor osteoporosis (compared with normal BMD) were associated with DRFS in both the 6-year [osteopenia HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.45-1.49), osteoporosis HR 1.10 (95% CI 0.26-4.67)] and the 3-year arm [osteopenia HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.40-1.42), osteoporosis HR 1.86 (95% CI 0.43-8.01)]. Moreover, bisphosphonate use did not impact DRFS., Conclusion: No association was observed between a reduced BMD and DRFS. Neither did we observe an impact of bisphosphonates on DRFS.

Purpose: Approximately 15% to 43% of esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive. Because dual-agent HER2 blockade demonstrated a survival benefit in breast cancer, we conducted a phase II feasibility study of trastuzumab and pertuzumab added to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with EAC., Patients and Methods: Patients with resectable HER2-positive EAC received standard nCRT with carboplatin and paclitaxel and 41.4 Gy of radiotherapy, with 4 mg/kg of trastuzumab on day 1, 2 mg/kg per week during weeks 2 to 6, and 6 mg/kg per week during weeks 7, 10, and 13 and 840 mg of pertuzumab every 3 weeks. The primary end point was feasibility, defined as ≥ 80% completion of treatment with both trastuzumab and pertuzumab. An exploratory comparison of survival with a propensity score-matched cohort receiving standard nCRT was performed, as were exploratory pharmacokinetic and biomarker analyses., Results: Of the 40 enrolled patients (78% men; median age, 63 years), 33 (83%) completed treatment with trastuzumab and pertuzumab. No unexpected safety events were observed. R0 resection was achieved in all patients undergoing surgery, with pathologic complete response in 13 patients (34%). Three-year progression-free and overall survival (OS) were 57% and 71%, respectively (median follow-up, 32.1 months). Compared with the propensity score-matched cohort, a significantly longer OS was observed with HER2 blockade (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.97). Results of pharmacokinetic analysis and activity on [ 18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scans did not correlate with survival or pathologic response. Patients with HER2 3+ overexpression or growth factor receptor-bound protein 7 (Grb7) -positive tumors at baseline demonstrated significantly better survival ( P = .007) or treatment response ( P = .016), respectively., Conclusion: Addition of trastuzumab and pertuzumab to nCRT in patients with HER2-positive EAC is feasible and demonstrates potentially promising activity compared with historical controls. HER2 3+ overexpression and Grb7 positivity are potentially predictive for survival and treatment response, respectively.

The phase III DATA study investigates the efficacy of adjuvant anastrozole (6 vs. 3 year) in postmenopausal women with breast cancer previously treated with 2-3 years of tamoxifen. This planned side-study assessed patterns of care regarding detection and treatment of osteopenia/osteoporosis, and trends in bone mineral density (BMD) during and after therapy. We registered all BMD measurements and bisphosphonate-use. Time to osteopenia/osteoporosis was analysed by Kaplan Meier methodology. For the trend in T-scores we used linear mixed models with random patients effects. Of 1860 eligible DATA patients, 910 (48.9%) had a baseline BMD measurement. Among patients with a normal baseline BMD (n = 417), osteopenia was observed in 53.5% and 55.4% in the 6- and 3-year group respectively (p = 0.18), during follow-up. Only two patients (3-year group) developed osteoporosis. Of the patients with osteopenia at baseline (n = 408), 24.4% and 20.4% developed osteoporosis respectively (p = 0.89). Three years after randomisation 18.3% and 18.2% used bisphosphonates in the 6- and 3-year groups respectively and 6 years after randomisation this was 23.7% and 20.9% respectively (p = 0.90) of which the majority used oral bisphosphonates. The yearly mean BMD-change during anastrozole in the lumbar spine showed a T-score decline of 0.075. After bisphosphonate addition the decline became less prominent (0.047 (p < 0.001)) and after anastrozole cessation, while continuing bisphosphonates, the mean BMD yearly increased (0.047 (p < 0.001)). In conclusion, extended anastrozole therapy was not associated with a higher incidence of osteoporosis. Anastrozole-use was associated with a BMD decrease; however, the decline was modest and partially reversible after anastrozole cessation., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

The standard of care for patients with an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is a salvage mastectomy. However, there is growing interest in the feasibility of repeat BCT for these patients. This systematic review contains the latest insights on BCT options for patients with an IBTR after initial BCT. A PubMed literature search was performed for articles on BCT options for IBTR after primary lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy. Weighted estimates were calculated for 5- and 10-year local control, distant metastasis-free and overall survival rates. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, cosmesis and quality of life. In total, 34 studies were eligible for analysis, of which 5 reported on repeat breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone, 10 with mixed populations (BCS ± RT and/or mastectomy), 18 on repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation (whole-breast or partial) and one on quality of life. The weighted estimates for 5-year overall survival for repeat BCS and repeat BCS followed by reirradiation were 77% and 87%, respectively. Five-year local control was 76% for repeat BCS alone and 89% for repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation. Grade III-IV toxicity rates after re-irradiation varied from 0 to 21%, whereas the cosmesis was excellent-good in 29-100% of patients and unacceptable in 0-18%. Repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation, with either whole breast or partial breast re-irradiation, seems a feasible alternative to mastectomy in case of IBTR, in selected patients. Toxicity rates are low and the cosmetic outcome is good, but the size and follow-up of the published patient series is limited., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

The DATA study (NCT00301457) compared 6 and 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer after 2-3 years of tamoxifen. Patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure (CIOFF) were also eligible, but could be at risk of ovarian function recovery (OFR). The current analysis compared the survival of women with CIOFF with definitely postmenopausal women and examined the influence of OFR on survival. Therefore, we selected patients from the DATA study aged 45-57 years at randomization who had received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. They were classified by reversibility of postmenopausal status: possibly reversible in case of CIOFF (n = 395) versus definitely postmenopausal (n = 261). The former were monitored by E2 measurements for OFR. The occurrence of OFR was incorporated as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox-regression model for calculating the hazard ratio (HR). We used the landmark method to calculate residual 5-year survival rates. When comparing CIOFF women with definitely postmenopausal women, the survival was not different. Among CIOFF women with available E2 follow-up values (n = 329), experiencing OFR (n = 39) had an unfavorable impact on distant recurrence-free survival (HR 2.27 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-5.25; p = 0.05] and overall survival (HR 2.61 [95% CI 1.11-6.13; p = 0.03]). After adjusting for tumor features, the HRs became 2.11 (95% CI 0.89-5.02; p = 0.09) and 2.24 (95% CI 0.92-5.45; p = 0.07), respectively. The residual 5-year rate for distant recurrence-free survival was 76.9% for women with OFR and 92.1% for women without OFR, and for 5-year overall survival 80.8% and 94.4%, respectively. Women with CIOFF receiving anastrozole may be at increased risk of disease recurrence if experiencing OFR., (© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Purpose: The essence of guideline recommendations often is intertwined in large texts. This impedes clinical implementation and evaluation and delays timely modular revisions needed to deal with an ever-growing amount of knowledge and application of personalized medicine. The aim of this project was to model guideline recommendations as data-driven clinical decision trees (CDTs) that are clinically interpretable and suitable for implementation in decision support systems., Methods: All recommendations of the Dutch national breast cancer guideline for nonmetastatic breast cancer were translated into CDTs. CDTs were constructed by nodes, branches, and leaves that represent data items (patient and tumor characteristics [eg, T stage]), data item values (eg, T2 or less), and recommendations (eg, chemotherapy), respectively. For all data items, source of origin was identified (eg, pathology), and where applicable, data item values were defined on the basis of existing classification and coding systems (eg, TNM, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine). All unique routes through all CDTs were counted to measure the degree of data-based personalization of recommendations., Results: In total, 60 CDTs were necessary to cover the whole guideline and were driven by 114 data items. Data items originated from pathology (49%), radiology (27%), clinical (12%), and multidisciplinary team (12%) reports. Of all data items, 101 (89%) could be classified by existing classification and coding systems. All 60 CDTs could be integrated in an interactive decision support app that contained 376 unique patient subpopulations., Conclusion: By defining data items unambiguously and unequivocally and coding them to an international coding system, it was possible to present a complex guideline as systematically constructed modular data-driven CDTs that are clinically interpretable and accessible in a decision support app.

Purpose: This study was designed to assess the impact of age and comorbidity on choice and outcome of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery., Methods: In this population-based study, all patients with potentially curable EC (cT1N+/cT2-3, TX, any cN, cM0) diagnosed in the South East of the Netherlands between 2004 and 2014 were included. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used to compare overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 702 patients was included. Age ≥ 75 years and multiple comorbidities were associated with a higher probability for dCRT (odds ratio [OR] 8.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.72-15.58; and OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.93-4.93). The strongest associations were found for the combination of hypertension plus diabetes (OR 3.80; 95% CI 1.97-7.32) and the combination of cardiovascular with pulmonary comorbidity (OR 3.18; 95% CI 1.57-6.46). Patients with EC who underwent dCRT had a poorer prognosis than those who underwent nCRT plus surgery, irrespective of age, number, and type of comorbidities. In contrast, for patients with squamous cell carcinoma with ≥ 2 comorbidities or age ≥ 75 years, OS was comparable between both groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.52; 95% CI 0.78-2.97; and HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.13-4.14)., Conclusions: Histological tumor type should be acknowledged in treatment choices for patients with esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery should basically be advised as treatment of choice for operable esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with ≥ 2 comorbidities or age ≥ 75 years, dCRT may be the preferred strategy.

Purpose: We determined if intermittent first-line treatment with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab was not inferior to continuous treatment in patients with HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer., Methods: Patients were randomized to 2 × 4 cycles or continuous 8 cycles of paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, followed by bevacizumab maintenance treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall progression-free survival (PFS). A proportional-hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR. The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the HR was compared with the non-inferiority margin of 1.34., Results: A total of 420 patients were included with well-balanced characteristics. In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 6.4-10.0) for intermittent and 9.7 months (95% CI 8.9-10.3) for continuous treatment, with a stratified HR of 1.17 (95% CI 0.88-1.57). Median OS was 17.5 months (95% CI 15.4-21.7) versus 20.9 months (95% CI 17.8-24.0) for intermittent versus continuous treatment, with a HR of 1.38 (95% CI 1.00-1.91). Safety results and actually delivered treatments revealed longer durations of treatment in the continuous arm, without significant unexpected findings., Conclusion: Intermittent first-line treatment cannot be recommended in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer., Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT 2010-021519-18; BOOG 2010-02.

Purpose: Neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) is increasingly administered in breast cancer patients. This study was conducted to identify predictors for tumor response in the breast and axilla., Methods: All female patients with nonmetastatic, noninflammatory breast cancer receiving NST between 2003-2013 at the Catharina Cancer Institute in Eindhoven, The Netherlands, were included., Results: The majority of 216 of the 337 patients receiving NST (65%) presented with a cT2 tumor. In 159 patients (47%), the axilla was clinically node positive. A pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast was achieved in 83 patients (24.6%), and a pCR in the axilla in 65 node-positive patients (40.9%). The triple-negative (OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.15-8.55) and hormone receptor (HR)-negative/HER2-positive tumors (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.59-8.75) were associated with in-breast pCR. Patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) were less likely to experience in-breast pCR (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.73) than those with invasive ductal cancer. Axillary pCR was found in 65 clinically node-positive patients (41%). Axillary pCR was more likely to occur in HR-positive/HER2-positive (OR 6.24, 95% CI 1.86-20.90) and HR-negative/HER2-positive tumors (OR 6.41, 95% CI 1.95-21.06), compared to HER2-negative disease. In-breast pCR was strongly associated with axillary pCR (OR 10.89, 95% CI 4.20-28.22)., Conclusion: Response to NST in the breast and axilla is largely determined by receptor status, with high pCR rates occurring in HER2-positive and triple-negative tumors. For axillary pCR, in-breast pCR and HER2-positive disease are the most important predictive factors., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Treatment for oesophageal cancer has evolved due to developments including the centralisation of surgery and introduction of neoadjuvant treatment. Therefore, this study evaluated trends in stage distribution, treatment and survival of oesophageal cancer patients in the last 26 years in the Netherlands., Patients and Methods: Patients with oesophageal cancer diagnosed in the period 1989-2014 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into two groups: non-metastatic (M0) and metastatic (M1). Trends in stage distribution, treatment and relative survival rates were evaluated according to histology., Results: Among all 35,760 patients, the percentage of an unknown tumour stage decreased from 34% to 10% during the study period, whereas the percentage of patients with metastatic disease increased from 21% to 34%. Among surgically treated patients 32% underwent a resection in a high-volume hospital in 2005 which increased to 92% in 2014. Use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy increased in non-metastatic oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients from respectively 4% and 2% in 2000-2004 to 43% and 26% in 2010-2014. Five-year relative survival increased from 8% to 22% for all patients; from 12% to 36% for non-metastatic OAC and from 9% to 27% for non-metastatic OSCC over 26 years. Median overall survival of metastatic patients improved from 18 to 22 weeks., Conclusion: In the Netherlands, survival for oesophageal cancer patients improved significantly, especially in the period 2005-2014 which might be the result of better treatment related to the centralisation of surgery and introduction of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer., Methods: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy., Discussion: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

Purpose To compare pre-agreed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains in patients with esophageal or junctional cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery or surgery alone. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of nCRT on HRQOL before surgery and the effect of surgery on HRQOL. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to nCRT (carboplatin plus paclitaxel with concurrent 41.4-Gy radiotherapy) followed by surgery or surgery alone. HRQOL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and -Oesophageal Cancer Module (QLQ-OES24) questionnaires pretreatment and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postoperatively. The nCRT group also received preoperative questionnaires. Physical functioning (PF; QLQ-C30) and eating problems (EA; QLQ-OES24) were chosen as predefined primary end points. Predefined secondary end points were global QOL (GQOL; QLQ-C30), fatigue (FA; QLQ-C30), and emotional problems (EM; QLQ-OES24). Results A total of 363 patients were analyzed. No statistically significant differences in postoperative HRQOL were found between treatment groups. In the nCRT group, PF, EA, GQOL, FA, and EM scores deteriorated 1 week after nCRT (Cohen's d: -0.93, P < .001; 0.47, P < .001; -0.84, P < .001; 1.45, P < .001; and 0.32, P = .001, respectively). In both treatment groups, all end points declined 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline (Cohen's d: -1.00, 0.33, -0.47, -0.34, and 0.33, respectively; all P < .001), followed by a continuous gradual improvement. EA, GQOL, and EM were restored to baseline levels during follow-up, whereas PF and FA remained impaired 1 year postoperatively (Cohen's d: 0.52 and -0.53, respectively; both P < .001). Conclusion Although HRQOL declined during nCRT, no effect of nCRT was apparent on postoperative HRQOL compared with surgery alone. In addition to the improvement in survival, these findings support the view that nCRT according to the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study-regimen can be regarded as a standard of care.

Background: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are given as adjuvant therapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women, also to those with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure. The current analysis reports on endocrine data of patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure who were included in the phase III DATA study assessing different durations of adjuvant anastrozole after tamoxifen., Methods: We identified all patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure. Women who underwent a bilateral ovariectomy or used luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists before random assignment were excluded. Plasma estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone levels were monitored until 30 months after random assignment at local laboratories. We aimed to determine the ovarian function recovery (OFR) rate during AI use by the cumulative incidence competing risk method and analyzed the trend of estradiol levels during AI use by a nested case-control approach in which a subset of control subjects were compared with the OFR patients excluding the value at OFR diagnosis., Results: The 329 eligible patients had a median age of 50.0 years (range = 45-57 years) at random assignment. Thirty-nine patients developed OFR, corresponding with a 30-month recovery rate of 12.4%. Of these, 11 (28.2%) were age 50 years or older at AI initiation. The estradiol level decreased statistically significantly by 37.8% (95% CI = 27.4% to 46.7%) over the initial 30 months of AI treatment in both groups. However, the estradiol levels in the women who experienced OFR remained statistically significantly higher (difference = 20.6%, 95% CI = 2.0% to 42.7%) prior to OFR diagnosis compared with those who did not experience OFR., Conclusions: The risk of OFR during AI treatment in breast cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced ovarian function failure is relevant, even beyond 45 years. Furthermore, women experiencing OFR had statistically significant higher estradiol levels during AI treatment (before OFR) than those without, with potential consequences regarding efficacy.

Background: The effect of extended adjuvant aromatase inhibition in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after sequential endocrine therapy of tamoxifen followed by an aromatase inhibitor for a 5-year treatment period still needs clarification. To address this issue, we began the DATA study to assess different durations of anastrozole therapy after tamoxifen., Methods: DATA was a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 study done in 79 hospitals in the Netherlands. We randomly assigned postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer with no signs of disease recurrence after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen to either 3 or 6 years of anastrozole treatment (1 mg orally once a day) in a 1:1 ratio. We used TENALEA (Trans European Network for Clinical Trials Services) for the randomisation procedure. Stratification factors were nodal status, hormone receptor status, HER2 status, and tamoxifen treatment duration. The primary study endpoint of this analysis was disease-free survival starting beyond 3 years after randomisation (adapted disease-free survival). Here we report the final analysis from the DATA trial, which is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00301457., Findings: Between June 28, 2006, and Aug 10, 2009, we screened 1912 patients of whom 955 were assigned to the 3-year group and 957 to the 6-year anastrozole treatment group. 1860 patients were eligible (931 in the 6-year group and 929 in the 3-year group) and 1660 were disease free 3 years after randomisation. The 5-year adapted disease-free survival was 83·1% (95% CI 80·0-86·3) in the 6-year group and 79·4% (76·1-82·8) in the 3-year group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·62-1·02]; p=0·066). Patients in the 6-year treatment group had more adverse events than those in the 3-year treatment group, including all-grade arthralgia or myalgia (478 [58%] of 827 in the 6-year treatment group vs 438 [53%] of 833 in the 3-year treatment group) and osteopenia or osteoporosis (173 [21%] vs 137 [16%])., Interpretation: We cannot recommend the use of extended adjuvant aromatase inhibition after 5 years of sequential endocrine therapy in all postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate different registration methods, setup margins and number of corrections for CBCT-based position verification for oesophageal cancer and to evaluate anatomical changes during the course of radiotherapy treatment., Methods: From 50 patients, 440 CBCT-scans were registered automatically using a soft tissue or bone registration algorithm and compared to the clinical match. Moreover, relevant anatomical changes were monitored. A sub-analysis was performed to evaluate if tumour location influenced setup variations. Margin calculation was performed and the number of setup corrections was estimated. Results were compared to a patient group previously treated with MV-EPID based position verification., Results: CBCT-based setup variations were smaller than EPID-based setup variations, resulting in smaller setup margins of 5.9 mm (RL), 7.5 mm (CC) and 4.7 mm (AP) versus 6.0 mm, 7.8 mm and 5.5 mm, respectively. A reduction in average number of setup corrections per patient was found from 0.75 to 0.36. From all automatically registered CBCT-scans, a clipbox around PTV and vertebras combined with soft tissue registration resulted in the smallest setup margins of 5.9 mm (RL), 7.7 mm (CC), 4.8 mm (AP) and smallest average number of corrections of 0.38. For distally located tumours, a setup margin of 7.7 mm (CC) was required compared to 5.6 mm for proximal tumours. Reduction of GTV volume, heart volume and change in diaphragm position were observed in 16, 10 and 15 patients, respectively., Conclusions: CBCT-based set-up variations are smaller than EPID-based variations and vary according to tumour location. When using kV-CBCT a large variety of anatomical changes is revealed, which cannot be observed with MV-EPID., (© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology.)

Background: Initial results of the ChemoRadiotherapy for Oesophageal cancer followed by Surgery Study (CROSS) comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction showed a significant increase in 5-year overall survival in favour of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery group after a median of 45 months' follow-up. In this Article, we report the long-term results after a minimum follow-up of 5 years., Methods: Patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced cancer of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction (clinical stage T1N1M0 or T2-3N0-1M0, according to the TNM cancer staging system, sixth edition) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with permuted blocks of four or six to receive either weekly administration of five cycles of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (intravenous carboplatin [AUC 2 mg/mL per min] and intravenous paclitaxel [50 mg/m(2) of body-surface area] for 23 days) with concurrent radiotherapy (41·4 Gy, given in 23 fractions of 1·8 Gy on 5 days per week) followed by surgery, or surgery alone. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. No adverse event data were collected beyond those noted in the initial report of the trial. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR487, and has been completed., Findings: Between March 30, 2004, and Dec 2, 2008, 368 patients from eight participating centres (five academic centres and three large non-academic teaching hospitals) in the Netherlands were enrolled into this study and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 180 to surgery plus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 188 to surgery alone. Two patients in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group withdrew consent, so a total of 366 patients were analysed (178 in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery group and 188 in the surgery alone group). Of 171 patients who received any neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in this group, 162 (95%) were able to complete the entire neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimen. After a median follow-up for surviving patients of 84·1 months (range 61·1-116·8, IQR 70·7-96·6), median overall survival was 48·6 months (95% CI 32·1-65·1) in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery group and 24·0 months (14·2-33·7) in the surgery alone group (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·88]; log-rank p=0·003). Median overall survival for patients with squamous cell carcinomas was 81·6 months (95% CI 47·2-116·0) in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery group and 21·1 months (15·4-26·7) in the surgery alone group (HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·28-0·83]; log-rank p=0·008); for patients with adenocarcinomas, it was 43·2 months (24·9-61·4) in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery group and 27·1 months (13·0-41·2) in the surgery alone group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·55-0·98]; log-rank p=0·038)., Interpretation: Long-term follow-up confirms the overall survival benefits for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy when added to surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional cancer. This improvement is clinically relevant for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma subtypes. Therefore, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy according to the CROSS trial followed by surgical resection should be regarded as a standard of care for patients with resectable locally advanced oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional cancer., Funding: Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding)., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)