Dose-Intense Cisplatin-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Increases Survival in Advanced Cervical Cancer: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We set out to demonstrate the benefit of using dose-intense cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival. METHODS: We searched through MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to May 2021 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the benefit of using cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by local treatment with local treatment alone for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. The PRISMA statement was applied. RESULTS: Twenty-two randomized clinical trials were retrieved between 1991 and 2019, corresponding to 3632 women with FIGO stages IB2-IVA cervical cancer. More than 50% of the randomized clinical trials were assessed as having a low risk of bias. There was no benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival, but there was significant heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 45%, p = 0.01). In contrast, dose-intense cisplatin at over 72.5 mg/m2/3 weeks was significantly associated with increased overall survival (RR = 0.87, p < 0.05) with no heterogeneity across the pooled studies (I2 = 36%, p = 0.11). The survival benefit was even greater when cisplatin was administered at a dose over 105 mg/m2/3 weeks (RR = 0.79, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Even though radiotherapy combined with weekly cisplatin-based chemotherapy remains standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer, our meta-analysis makes it possible to consider the use of dose-intense cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy when local treatment is suboptimal and opens perspectives for designing new clinical trials in this setting. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be proposed when surgery is local treatment instead of standard chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer.

A successful compartmental approach for the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are challenging daily practice in oncology and remain a compartmental problem since most anti-cancer drugs do not cross the blood-brain barrier at relevant pharmacological concentrations. METHODS: In a young woman with HER2-overexpressing breast cancer resistant to standard treatments, at the time of brain metastases progression, a ventricular reservoir was implanted for intrathecal drug injections and detailed pharmacokinetic studies. RESULTS: A first association of intrathecal trastuzumab with intravenous cisplatin was offered to the patient. For trastuzumab, the mean cerebrospinal fluid trough concentration of 53.4 mg/L reached relevant levels, enabling the stabilization of the metastases. Adding intravenous cisplatin was not beneficial, since the cerebrospinal fluid exposure was almost undetectable under 0.08 mg/L. We then offered the patient an intrathecal combination of trastuzumab and methotrexate, because of their in vitro synergic cytotoxicity. The cerebrospinal fluid peak of methotrexate was 1037 µmol/L at 2 h, and the concentrations remained above the theoretical therapeutic concentration. After 2 months of this drug combination, we obtained an excellent response on the brain metastases. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary study supports the interest of a compartmental approach through a direct administration of drugs into the cerebrospinal fluid for the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases.

Crossing the perspectives of patients, families, and physicians on cancer treatment: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Patients, family members, and physicians participate in cancer care, but their perspectives about what is helpful during cancer treatment have rarely been compared. The aim of this study was to compare these three perspectives. METHODS: Multicenter qualitative study (with previously published protocol) based on 90 semi-structured interviews. Participants (purposively selected until data saturation) came from three different subsamples: (i) patients with cancer (n=30), (ii) their relatives (n=30), and (iii) their referring physicians (n=10, interviewed more than once). RESULTS: Our analysis found 3 main axes (perceived positive effects of cancer treatment, perceived negative effects of cancer treatment, doctor-physician relationship), each composed of 2 main themes. The findings showed that patients, families, and physicians shared the long-term objective of increasing survival (while reducing side effects). However, patients and relatives also pointed out the importance of living with cancer each day and thus of factors helping them to live as well as possible in daily life. The physicians' difficulty in coping with patients' suffering may limit their access to elements that can improve patients' capacity to live as well as possible. CONCLUSIONS: During cancer treatment (and not only at the end of life), attention should be given to enhancing the capacity of patients to live as well as possible (not only as long as possible) to meet the goals of patient-centered care and satisfy this important need of patients and families.

Breaking Bad News in Oncology: A Metasynthesis.

PURPOSE: The delivery of bad news by oncologists to their patients is a key moment in the physician-patient relationship. We performed a systematic review of qualitative studies (a metasynthesis) that focused on the experiences and points of view of oncologists about breaking bad news to patients. METHODS: We searched international publications to identify relevant qualitative research exploring oncologists' perspectives about this topic. Thematic analysis, which compensates for the potential lack of generalizability of the primary studies by their conjoint interpretation, was used to identify key themes and synthesize them. NVivo qualitative analysis software was used. RESULTS: We identified 40 articles (> 600 oncologists) from 12 countries and assessed their quality as good according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Two main themes emerged: the patient-oncologist encounter during the breaking of bad news, comprising essential aspects of the communication, including the process of dealing with emotions; and external factors shaping the patient-oncologist encounter, composed of factors that influence the announcement beyond the physician-patient relationship: the family, systemic and institutional factors, and cultural factors. CONCLUSION: Breaking bad news is a balancing act that requires oncologists to adapt continually to different factors: their individual relationships with the patient, the patient's family, the institutional and systemic environment, and the cultural milieu. Extending the development of the ability to personalize and adapt therapeutic treatment to this realm of communications would be a major step forward from the stereotyped way that oncologists are currently trained in communication skills.