Prognostic stratification ability of the CPS+EG scoring system in HER2-low and HER2-zero early breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The CPS+EG scoring system was initially described in unselected early breast cancer (eBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), leading to refined prognostic stratification, and thus helping to select patients for additional post-NAC treatments. It remains unknown whether the performance is the same in new biological breast cancer entities such as the HER2-low subtype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Outcomes (disease-free (DFS) and overall survival OS)) of 608 patients with HER2-non amplified eBC and treated with NAC were retrospectively analyzed according to CPS-EG score. We compared the prognostic stratification abilities of the CPS+EG in HER2-low and HER2-0 eBC, analyzing ER+ and ER- tumors separately. RESULTS: In ER+ eBC, the CPS+EG scoring system seems to retain a prognostic value, both in HER2-low and HER2-0 tumors, by distinguishing populations with significantly different outcomes (good: score 0-1, poor: score 2-3, and very poor: score 4-5). Using C-indices for DFS and OS, CPS+EG provided the highest prognostic information in ER+ eBC, especially in HER2-0 tumors. In contrast, in ER- eBC, the CPS+EG does not appear to be able to distinguish different outcome groups, either in HER2-low or HER2-0 tumors. In ER- eBC, C-indices for DFS and OS were highest for pathological stage, reflecting the predominant prognostic importance of residual disease in this subtype. CONCLUSIONS: HER2-low status does not influence the prognostic performance of the CPS+EG score. Our results confirm the usefulness of the CPS+EG score in stratifying the prognosis of ER+ eBC after NAC, for both HER2-0 and HER2-low tumors. For ER- eBC, HER2-low status does not influence the performance of the CPS+EG score, which was lower than that of the pathological stage alone.

Carboplatin and Etoposide for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer with or without Neuroendocrine Features: A French Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy using carboplatin and etoposide (CE) is frequently pragmatically proposed to treat metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), both primary small-cell neuroendocrine (PSC-NE) carcinoma and adenocarcinoma with or without neuroendocrine (NE) marker elevation. However, the real benefit of CE is poorly reported in the recent therapeutic context. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and tolerance of CE chemotherapy in these three different groups of mPC patients. Efficacy endpoints included radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), as well as PSA response and PFS2/PFS1 ratio in patients with adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included in this single-center study (N = 18 with PSC-NE carcinoma and 51 with adenocarcinoma with (N = 18) or without (N = 33) NE marker elevation). Patients with adenocarcinoma were highly pretreated with next-generation hormonal agents (NHAs) and taxanes. In patients with adenocarcinoma, a PSA response ≥50% was observed in six patients (15.8%), four of whom had NE marker elevation. The radiological response was higher in PSC-NE and tended to be higher in adenocarcinoma when NE marker elevation was present. Comparing patients with adenocarcinoma with vs. without NE marker elevation, the median PFS was 3.7 and 2.1 months and the median OS was 7.7 and 4.7 months, respectively. Overall, 62.3% of patients experienced grade 3-4 adverse events (mainly hematological), and three treatment-related deaths were recorded. CONCLUSION: Reports of the clinical results of CE suggest that we should not mix PSC-NE and castration-resistant adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In patients with heavily pretreated adenocarcinoma, the benefit/risk ratio of CE chemotherapy seems unfavorable due to poor response and high toxicity.