Bone Metastases Detection in Patients with Breast Cancer: Does Bone Scintigraphy Add Information to PET/CT?

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has become in recent years a tool for breast cancer (BC) staging. However, its accuracy to detect bone metastases is classically considered inferior to bone scintigraphy (BS). The purpose of this work is to compare the effectiveness of bone metastases detection between PET/CT and BS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective study of 410 female patients treated in a Comprehensive Cancer Center between 2014 and 2020 that performed PET/CT and BS for staging purposes. The image analysis was performed by 2 senior nuclear medicine physicians. The comparison was performed based on accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity on a patient and anatomical region level and was assessed using McNemar's Test. An average ROC was calculated for the anatomical region analysis. RESULTS: PET/CT presented higher values of accuracy and sensitivity (98.0% and 93.83%), surpassing BS (95.61% and 81.48%) in detecting bone disease. There was a significant difference in favor of PET/CT (sensitivity 93.83% vs. 81.48%), however, there is no significant difference in eliminating false positives (specificity 99.09% vs. 99.09%). PET/CT presented the highest accuracy and sensitivity values for most of the bone segments, only surpassed by BS for the cranium. There was a significant difference in favor of PET/CT in the upper limb, spine, thorax (sternum) and lower limb (pelvis and sacrum), and in favor of BS in the cranium. The ROC showed that PET/CT has a higher sensitivity and consistency across the bone segments. CONCLUSION: With the correct imaging protocol, PET/CT does not require BS for patients with BC staging.

Patient perspectives on repeated contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance during neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The burden perceived by the patient of repeated imaging required for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) monitoring warrants attention due to the increased use of NAC and imaging. PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the experienced burden associated with repeated contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during NAC for breast cancer from the patient perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent were obtained. In this prospective study, CEM and MRI were performed on 38 patients with breast cancer before, during, and after NAC in a tertiary cancer center. The experienced burden was evaluated with a self-reported questionnaire addressing duration, comfort, anxiety, positioning, and intravenous contrast administration, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The participants were asked their preference between CEM or MRI. Statistical comparisons were performed and P<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 29, 76%) preferred CEM over MRI (P = 0.0008). CEM was associated with a significantly shorter duration (P < 0.001), greater overall comfort (P < 0.01), more comfortable positioning (P = 0.01), and lower anxiety (P = 0.03). Intravenous contrast administration perception revealed no significant difference. Only 4 (10%) participants preferred MRI over CEM, due to the absence of breast compression. CONCLUSION: In the hypothetical scenario of equal diagnostic accuracy, most participants preferred CEM and compared CEM favorably to MRI in all investigated features at repeated imaging required for NAC response assessment. Our results indicate that repeated examinations with CEM is well tolerated and constitutes a patient-friendly alternative for NAC imaging monitoring in breast cancer.

Recycling the Purpose of Old Drugs to Treat Ovarian Cancer.

The main challenge in ovarian cancer treatment is the management of recurrences. Facing this scenario, therapy selection is based on multiple factors to define the best treatment sequence. Target therapies, such as bevacizumab and polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, improved patient survival. However, despite their achievements, ovarian cancer survival remains poor; these therapeutic options are highly costly and can be associated with potential side effects. Recently, it has been shown that the combination of repurposed, conventional, chemotherapeutic drugs could be an alternative, presenting good patient outcomes with few side effects and low costs for healthcare institutions. The main aim of this review is to strengthen the importance of repurposed drugs as therapeutic alternatives, and to propose an in vitro model to assess the therapeutic value. Herein, we compiled the current knowledge on the most promising non-oncological drugs for ovarian cancer treatment, focusing on statins, metformin, bisphosphonates, ivermectin, itraconazole, and ritonavir. We discuss the primary drug use, anticancer mechanisms, and applicability in ovarian cancer. Finally, we propose the use of these therapies to perform drug efficacy tests in ovarian cancer ex vivo cultures. This personalized testing approach could be crucial to validate the existing evidences supporting the use of repurposed drugs for ovarian cancer treatment.

Patterns of recurrence and treatment in male breast cancer: A clue to prognosis?

Male breast cancer (MBC) patients seem to have inferior survival compared to female (FBC) ones, which is not fully explained by usual prognostic factors. Recurrence analysis could show differences in relapse patterns and/or in patients' approaches that justify these outcomes. Retrospective analysis of MBC patients treated in a cancer center between 1990 and 2014, looking for relapse. For each patient, three matched FBC patients were selected by: diagnosis' year, age (within 5 years), stage and tumors' type (only luminal-like were considered). Differences between cohorts were assessed by χ(2) test and hierarchical clustering was performed to define subgroups according to relapse local. Survival curves were calculated by Kaplan-Meier and compared using log-rank test. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Groups were balanced according to age, histological grade, stage, expression of hormonal receptors and adjuvant treatments. Median time to recurrence was equivalent, p = 0.72, with the majority of patients presented with distant metastases, p = 0.69, with more lung involvement in male, p = 0.003. Male patients were more often proposed to symptomatic treatment (21.1% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.02). Overall and from recurrence survivals were poorer for male, median: 5 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.1-5.9 years] and 1 year (95% CI: 0-2.1 years) vs. 10 years (95% CI: 7.8-12.2 years) and 2 years (95% CI: 1.6-2.4 years), p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively, and this tendency remained in the five cluster subgroups, that identified five patterns of relapse, p = 0.003. MBC patients had the worst survival, even after controlling important factors, namely the local of relapse. Palliative systemic treatment had favorable impact in prognosis and its frequently avoidance in male could justify the outcomes differences.

Avapritinib in unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with PDGFRA exon 18 mutation: safety and efficacy.

INTRODUCTION: Avapritinib (formerly known as BLU-285) is an orally available type I tyrosine kinase inhibitor that, in 2020, obtained regulatory approval for the treatment of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a primary mutation in PDGFRA exon 18, including the PDGFRA D842V mutation. AREAS COVERED: Herein, we comprehensively review the available efficacy and safety data on avapritinib, with the final goal of providing practical knowledge to both sarcoma and community-based oncologists for the correct management of this rare GIST subpopulation with this novel therapy. EXPERT OPINION: The approval of avapritinib in GIST is a milestone in precision oncology, as this is the first agent ever demonstrating unequivocal antitumoral activity in GIST driven by the multi-resistant PDGFRA D842V mutation. The safety profile is manageable and tolerability-guided dose adjustment is recommended to manage treatment-related adverse events without compromising efficacy. Based on its unprecedented activity, avapritinib should be considered as first-line therapy for GIST patients harboring this mutation. We strongly recommend to determine KIT/PDGFRA genotype in order to identify the different GIST molecular subtypes and guide treatment decision.