The role of platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is highly controversial and it is not endorsed by current guidelines. Our meta-analysis aimed to ...better elucidate its activity, efficacy and safety.
A systematic search of Medline, Web of Science and conferences proceedings up to 30 October 2017 was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating platinum-based versus platinum-free neoadjuvant chemotherapy in TNBC patients. Using the fixed and random effects models, pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pathological complete response (pCR, defined as ypT0/is pN0), event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs: neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and neuropathy).
Nine RCTs (N=2109) were included. Overall, platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased pCR rate from 37.0% to 52.1% (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.46–2.62, P<0.001). Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained significantly associated with increased pCR rate also after restricting the analysis to the three RCTs (N=611) that used the same standard regimen in both groups of weekly paclitaxel (with or without carboplatin) followed by anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.37–4.66, P=0.003). Conversely, among the 96 BRCA-mutated patients included in two RCTs, the addition of carboplatin was not associated with significantly increased pCR rate (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.51–2.67, P=0.711). Two RCTs (N=748) reported survival outcomes: no significant difference in EFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49–1.06, P=0.094) and OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46–1.63, P=0.651) was observed.
A significant higher risk of grade 3 and 4 hematological AEs, with no increased risk of grade 3 and 4 neuropathy was observed with platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
In TNBC patients, platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with significantly increased pCR rates at the cost of worse hematological toxicities. Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be considered an option in TNBC patients.
CRD42018080042.
•These ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines provide recommendations for:○Fertility preservation strategies in post-pubertal cancer patients, including those with hereditary cancer syndromes.○The ...management of post-treatment pregnancies in cancer survivors, including those with hereditary cancer syndromes.•Management flowcharts for fertility preservation strategies are also provided.•Recommendations were compiled by the authors based on available scientific data and the authors' collective expert opinion.
The value of art in modern dermatology and medicine Lambertini, M.; Lambertini, L.; Dika, E.
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology,
September 2023, Letnik:
37, Številka:
9
Journal Article
•It provides recommendations for risk reduction and screening in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome.•It focuses on risk reduction and screening mainly in unaffected carriers and ...high-resource settings.•The panel encompasses an international multidisciplinary group of experts.•Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the authors’ collective expert opinion.
The role of temporary ovarian suppression with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) is still controversial. ...Our meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) investigates whether the use of LHRHa during chemotherapy in premenopausal breast cancer patients reduces treatment-related POF rate, increases pregnancy rate, and impacts disease-free survival (DFS).
A literature search using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, and the proceedings of major conferences, was conducted up to 30 April 2015. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for POF (i.e. POF by study definition, and POF defined as amenorrhea 1 year after chemotherapy completion) and for patients with pregnancy, as well hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI for DFS, were calculated for each trial. Pooled analysis was carried out using the fixed- and random-effects models.
A total of 12 RCTs were eligible including 1231 breast cancer patients. The use of LHRHa was associated with a significant reduced risk of POF (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23–0.57; P < 0.001), yet with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 47.1%, Pheterogeneity = 0.026). In eight studies reporting amenorrhea rates 1 year after chemotherapy completion, the addition of LHRHa reduced the risk of POF (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41–0.73, P < 0.001) without heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.936). In five studies reporting pregnancies, more patients treated with LHRHa achieved pregnancy (33 versus 19 women; OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.02–3.28, P = 0.041; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.629). In three studies reporting DFS, no difference was observed (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49–2.04, P = 0.939; I2 = 68.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.044).
Temporary ovarian suppression with LHRHa in young breast cancer patients is associated with a reduced risk of chemotherapy-induced POF and seems to increase the pregnancy rate, without an apparent negative consequence on prognosis.
We aimed to provide comprehensive protocols and promote effective management of pregnant women with gynecological cancers. New insights and more experience have been gained since the previous ...guidelines were published in 2014. Members of the International Network on Cancer, Infertility and Pregnancy (INCIP), in collaboration with other international experts, reviewed existing literature on their respective areas of expertise. Summaries were subsequently merged into a manuscript that served as a basis for discussion during the consensus meeting. Treatment of gynecological cancers during pregnancy is attainable if management is achieved by collaboration of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers. This allows further optimization of maternal treatment, while considering fetal development and providing psychological support and long-term follow-up of the infants. Nonionizing imaging procedures are preferred diagnostic procedures, but limited ionizing imaging methods can be allowed if indispensable for treatment plans. In contrast to other cancers, standard surgery for gynecological cancers often needs to be adapted according to cancer type and gestational age. Most standard regimens of chemotherapy can be administered after 14 weeks gestational age but are not recommended beyond 35 weeks. C-section is recommended for most cervical and vulvar cancers, whereas vaginal delivery is allowed in most ovarian cancers. Breast-feeding should be avoided with ongoing chemotherapeutic, endocrine or targeted treatment. More studies that focus on the long-term toxic effects of gynecologic cancer treatments are needed to provide a full understanding of their fetal impact. In particular, data on targeted therapies that are becoming standard of care in certain gynecological malignancies is still limited. Furthermore, more studies aimed at the definition of the exact prognosis of patients after antenatal cancer treatment are warranted. Participation in existing registries (www.cancerinpregnancy.org) and the creation of national tumor boards with multidisciplinary teams of care providers (supplementary Box S1, available at Annals of Oncology online) is encouraged.
Is it safe to perform controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation before starting anticancer therapies or ART after treatments in young breast cancer patients?
Performing COS ...before, or ART following anticancer treatment in young women with breast cancer does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in terms of breast cancer recurrence, mortality or event-free survival (EFS).
COS for oocyte/embryo cryopreservation before starting chemotherapy is standard of care for young women with breast cancer wishing to preserve fertility. However, some oncologists remain concerned on the safety of COS, particularly in patients with hormone-sensitive tumors, even when associated with aromatase inhibitors. Moreover, limited evidence exists on the safety of ART in breast cancer survivors for achieving pregnancy after the completion of anticancer treatments.
The present systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out by three blinded investigators using the keywords 'breast cancer' and 'fertility preservation'; keywords were combined with Boolean operators. Eligible studies were identified by a systematic literature search of Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to 30 June 2021.
To be included in this meta-analysis, eligible studies had to be case-control or cohort studies comparing survival outcomes of women who underwent COS or ART before or after breast cancer treatments compared to breast cancer patients not exposed to these strategies. Survival outcomes of interest were cancer recurrence rate, relapse rate, overall survival and number of deaths. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were extracted. When the number of events for each group were available but the above measures were not reported, HRs were estimated using the Watkins and Bennett method. We excluded case reports or case series with <10 patients and studies without a control group of breast cancer patients who did not pursue COS or ART. Quality of data and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale.
A total of 1835 records were retrieved. After excluding ineligible publications, 15 studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis (n = 4643). Among them, 11 reported the outcomes of breast cancer patients who underwent COS for fertility preservation before starting chemotherapy, and 4 the safety of ART following anticancer treatment completion. Compared to women who did not receive fertility preservation at diagnosis (n = 2386), those who underwent COS (n = 1594) had reduced risk of recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73) and mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76). No detrimental effect of COS on EFS was observed (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.06). A similar trend of better outcomes in terms of EFS was observed in women with hormone-receptor-positive disease who underwent COS (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). A reduced risk of recurrence was also observed in patients undergoing COS before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.80). Compared to women not exposed to ART following completion of anticancer treatments (n = 540), those exposed to ART (n = 123) showed a tendency for better outcomes in terms of recurrence ratio (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) and EFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-1.11).
This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies included are retrospective cohort studies. Not all studies had matching criteria between the study population and the controls, and these criteria often differed between the studies. Moreover, rate of recurrence is reported as a punctual event and it is not possible to establish when recurrences occurred and whether follow-up, which was shorter than 5 years in some of the included studies, is adequate to capture late recurrences.
Our results demonstrate that performing COS at diagnosis or ART following treatment completion does not seem to be associated with detrimental prognostic effect in young women with breast cancer, including among patients with hormone receptor-positive disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Partially supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; grant number MFAG 2020 ID 24698) and the Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds 2017 (no grant number). M.L. acted as consultant for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Seagen and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Ipsen, Takeda, Libbs, Knight, Sandoz outside the submitted work. F.S. acted as consultant for Novartis, MSD, Sun Pharma, Philogen and Pierre Fabre and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Merck, Sun Pharma, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. I.D. has acted as a consultant for Roche, has received research grants from Roche and Ferring, has received reagents for academic clinical trial from Roche diagnostics, speaker's fees from Novartis, and support for congresses from Theramex and Ferring outside the submitted work. L.D.M. reported honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis and had an advisory role for Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
N/A.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (i.e. anti-PD1, anti-PDL1, and anti-CTLA4) have revolutionized the therapeutic approach of several cancer types. In a subset of metastatic patients, the duration of the ...response is so long that a cure might be hypothesized, and a treatment discontinuation strategy could be proposed. Considering that long-term efficacy, some patients could also plan to have a child. Moreover, immunotherapy is moving to the early setting in several diseases including melanoma and breast cancer that are common cancers in young patients. However, there is a paucity of data about their potential detrimental effect on fertility, pregnancy, or sexuality. Herein, we conducted a systematic review with the aim to comprehensively collect the available evidence about fertility, pregnancy, and sexual adverse effects of checkpoint inhibitors in order to help clinicians in daily practice and trialists to develop future studies.
•This review collected the available evidence on the role of immunotherapy on fertility, hypogonadism, and sexuality.•Immune checkpoint inhibitors could impair fertility.•Immunotherapy can cause primary hypogonadism and secondary hypogonadism.•Immune checkpoint inhibitors have to be avoided during or shortly before pregnancy.•Immunotherapy might alter sexuality and libido.
In early breast cancer (BC), there has been a trend to escalate endocrine therapy (ET) and to de-escalate chemotherapy (CT). However, the impact of ET versus CT on the quality of life (QoL) of early ...BC patients is unknown. Here, we characterize the independent contribution of ET and CT on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 2 years after diagnosis.
We prospectively collected PROs in 4262 eligible patients using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30/BR23 questionnaires inside CANTO trial (NCT01993498). The primary outcome was the C30 summary score (C30-SumSc) at 2 years after diagnosis.
From eligible patients, 37.2% were premenopausal and 62.8% postmenopausal; 81.9% received ET and 52.8% CT. In the overall cohort, QoL worsened by 2 years after diagnosis in multiple functions and symptoms; exceptions included emotional function and future perspective, which improved over time. ET (Pint = 0.004), but not CT (Pint = 0.924), had a persistent negative impact on the C30-SumSc. In addition, ET negatively impacted role and social function, pain, insomnia, systemic therapy side-effects, breast symptoms and further limited emotional function and future perspective recovery. Although CT had no impact on the C30-SumSc at 2-years it was associated with deteriorated physical and cognitive function, dyspnea, financial difficulties, body image and breast symptoms. We found a differential effect of treatment by menopausal status; in premenopausal patients, CT, despite only a non-significant trend for deteriorated C30-SumSc (Pint = 0.100), was more frequently associated with QoL domains deterioration than ET, whereas in postmenopausal patients, ET was more frequently associated with QoL deterioration, namely using the C30-SumSc (Pint = 0.004).
QoL deterioration persisted at 2 years after diagnosis with different trajectories by treatment received. ET, but not CT, had a major detrimental impact on C30-SumSc, especially in postmenopausal women. These findings highlight the need to properly select patients for adjuvant ET escalation.
PDF
