French national survey on breast cancer care: caregiver and patient views.

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of care for patients with breast cancer, an analysis of the health-care pathway, considering feedback from both health-care practitioners (HCPs) and patients, is needed. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, we conducted a survey at French breast cancer centers and analyzed information from questionnaires completed by HCPs and patients. We collected information on center organization, diagnostic processes, treatment decisions and modalities, supportive care, patient advocacy groups, and work issues. RESULTS: Twenty-three breast cancer centers were included and questionnaires completed by 247 HCPs and 249 patients were analyzed. The centers closely followed the legal French framework for cancer treatments, which includes formal diagnostic announcements, multidisciplinary tumor boards, personalized treatment summaries, and supportive care access. HCPs and patients were satisfied with the time to diagnosis (≤ 2 weeks as evaluated by 75% of patients), time to surgery (mean 61 days), time between surgery and chemotherapy (mean 47 days), and time between surgery and radiotherapy (mean 81 days). Fertility preservation counseling for women under 40 years of age was systematically offered by 67% of the HCPs. The majority (67%) of the patients indicated that they had received a personalized treatment summary; the topics discussed included treatments (92%), tumor characteristics (84%), care pathways (79%), supportive care (52%), and breast reconstruction (33%). Among HCPs, 44% stated that reconstructive surgery was offered to all eligible patients and 57% and 45% indicated coordination between centers and primary care physicians for adverse effects management and access to supportive care should be improved, for chemotherapy and radiotherapy, respectively. Regarding patient advocacy groups, 34% of HCPs did not know whether patients had contact and only 23% of patients declared that they had such contact. For one-third of working patients, work issues were not discussed. Twenty-eight percent of patients claimed that they had faced difficulties for supportive care access. Among HCPs, 13% stated that a formal personalized survivorship treatment program was administered to almost all patients and 37% almost never introduced the program to their patients. Compliance to oral treatments was considered very good for 75-100% of patients by 62% of HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an updated analysis of breast cancer care pathways in France. Overall, the initial processes of diagnosis, announcement, and treatment were swift and were in agreement with the best care standards. No barriers to accessing care were identified. Based on the study findings, we proposed several strategies to improve the quality of care for patients in supportive care, coordination with primary care physicians, reconstructive surgery, and fertility preservation access.

New perspectives on metabolic imaging in the management of prostate cancer in 2022: A focus on radiolabeled PSMA­PET/CT (Review).

Nuclear medicine is an essential part of prostate cancer management concerning initial staging, patient follow-up and even therapy. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a glutamate carboxypeptidase II transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by 80% of prostatic cells. The interest in this protein is due to its specificity for prostatic tissue. The use of 68GaPSMA PET/CT in the context of disease staging is thus well-established and recommended, especially for high-risk disease with metastases and lymph node involvement. However, the risk of false positives raises questions regarding its place in the management of patients with prostate cancer. The present study aimed to determine the use of PET-PSMA in the care of patients with prostate cancer but also to assess its limits of use.

CHEOPS trial: a GINECO group randomized phase II assessing addition of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor to oral vinorelbine in pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the CHEOPS trial was to assess the benefit of adding aromatase inhibitor (AI) to metronomic chemotherapy, oral vinorelbine, 50 mg, three times a week for pre-treated, HR + /HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: In this multicentric phase II study, patients had to have progressed on AI and one or two lines of chemotherapy. They were randomized between oral vinorelbine (Arm A) and oral vinorelbine with non-steroidal AI (Arm B). RESULTS: 121 patients were included, 61 patients in Arm A and 60 patients in Arm B. The median age was 68 years. 109 patients had visceral metastases. They all had previously received an AI. The study had been prematurely stopped following the third death due to febrile neutropenia. Median PFS trend was found to be different with 2.3 months and 3.7 months in Arm A and Arm B, respectively (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.50-1.06, p value = 0.0929). No statistical difference was shown in OS and better tumor response. 56 serious adverse events corresponding to 25 patients (21%) were reported (respectively, 12 (20%) versus 13 (22%) for arms A and B) (NS). CONCLUSION: The addition of AI to oral vinorelbine over oral vinorelbine alone in aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer was associated with a non-significant improvement of PFS. Several unexpected serious adverse events were reported. Metronomic oral vinorelbine schedule, at 50 mg three times a week, requires close biological monitoring. The question of hormonal treatment and chemotherapy combination remains open.

Real-World Data on Olaparib in Relapsed BRCA-mutated Ovarian Cancer: A Multicenter GINECO RETROLA Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Olaparib was approved in 2014 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as maintenance treatment for patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA)-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) following the results of the Study 19. We present the results of a national real-world study on the effectiveness of olaparib in relapsed BRCA-mutated EOC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with EOC, peritoneal, and/or fallopian-tube cancer treated with olaparib in a French Center between May 2014 and March 2017 were included. The primary end-point of the study was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 128 patients analyzed, 89 were treated according to the EMA label. The median progression-free survival was 17.0 months. The most common treatment-related toxicity was fatigue. Treatment-related myelodysplastic syndrome (n=5) and a second cancer (n=1) were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: In this real-life setting, olaparib confirmed its efficacy and safety profile, as previously shown in clinical trials.

Is sarcopenia a missed factor in the management of patients with metastatic breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia has emerged as an important parameter to predict outcomes and treatment toxicity. However, limited data are available to assess sarcopenia prevalence in metastatic breast cancer and to evaluate its management. METHODS: The SCAN study was a cross-sectional multicenter French study that aimed to estimate sarcopenia prevalence in a real-life sample of metastatic cancer patients. Sarcopenia was identified by low muscle mass (estimated from the skeletal muscle index at the third lumbar, via computed tomography) and low muscle strength (defined by handgrip strength). Three populations were distinguished based on EWGSOP criteria: a sarcopenic group with low muscle mass AND strength, a pre-sarcopenic group with low muscle mass OR strength and a normal group with high muscle mass AND strength. RESULTS: Among 766 included patients, 139 patients with breast cancer and median age of 61.2 years (29.9-97.8 years) were evaluable; 29.5% were sarcopenic and 41.0% were pre-sarcopenic. Sarcopenic patients were older (P < 0.01), had a worse PS-score (P < 0.05), and a higher number of metastatic sites (P < 0.01), the majority being hepatic and bone. A moderate agreement between the oncologist's diagnosis and sarcopenia evaluation by muscle mass and strength was recognized (Cohen's kappa = 0.45). No associations were found between sarcopenia and adverse event occurrence in the 12 patients for whom these were reported. Sarcopenic patients were underdiagnosed and nutritional care and physical activity were less proposed. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to evaluate sarcopenia due to its impact on patient prognosis, and its utility in guiding patient management in metastatic breast cancer.

Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Febrile neutropenia (FN) commonly occurs during cancer chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is known to reduce the severity and incidence of FN and infections in patients with cancer. Despite the proven efficacy, G-CSFs are not always prescribed as recommended. We performed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to determine what factors drive the physician preference for FN prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Attributes for the DCE were selected based on literature search and on expert focus group discussions and comprised pain at the injection site, presence of bone pain, associated fever/influenza syndrome, efficacy of prophylaxis, biosimilar availability, number of injections per chemotherapy cycle and cost. Oncologists, in a national database, were solicited to participate in an online DCE. The study collected the responses to the choice scenarios, the oncologist characteristics and their usual prescriptions of G-CSFs in the context of breast, lungs and gastrointestinal cancers. RESULTS: Overall, the responses from 205 physicians were analysed. The physicians were mainly male (61%), with ≤20 years of experience (76%) and working only in public hospitals (73%). The physicians prescribe G-CSF primary prophylaxis for 32% of patients: filgrastim in 46% and pegfilgrastim in 54%. The choice of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was driven by cost and number of injections. Biosimilars were well accepted. CONCLUSION: Cost and convenience of G-CSF drive the physician decision to prescribe or not G-CSF for primary and secondary FN prophylaxes. It is important that these results be incorporated in the optimisation of G-CSF prescription in the clinical setting.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3 ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT3 RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK1 RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK1 RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%. RESULTS: Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant. CONCLUSION: This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

Patient perspectives on supportive care in cancer: Results of the Calista 2 study.

OBJECTIVE: Over recent decades, supportive care and patient quality of life, advocated by dedicated guidelines, have become a core focus of the concept of integrative medicine. The Calista 2 survey was conducted in France between September 2016 and October 2017 among oncologists and their patients being treated for early breast cancer, adjuvant colorectal cancer or advanced lung cancer. The present analysis sought to ascertain, understand and rank the expectations of cancer patients with regard to supportive care. METHODS: Data were collected from 467 questionnaires from patients recruited by 82 oncologists. Inclusion criteria were patients already on treatment for breast cancer, colorectal cancer or lung cancer. Most supportive care facilities were available at the point of care. RESULTS: Physicians were mainly seen to offer management of adverse events (81%), and pain (72%), psychological support (56%), and advice on diet/nutrition (49%). Patient uptake of supportive care related essentially to management of adverse events (72%) and pain (61%), diet/nutrition (34%), and self-image improvement techniques (31%). The main unmet needs voiced by patients were information on complementary medicines (28%), management of fatigue (27%), and relaxation techniques (24%). CONCLUSION: Supportive care was essentially seen to satisfy patient requirements with regard to the management of adverse events and pain. However, patients highlighted the need for a wider access to fatigue management and information on complementary medicine and relaxation techniques.

The self-reported perceptions of the repercussions of the disease and its treatments on daily life for young women with breast cancer and their partners.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the self-reported perceptions of the repercussions of the disease and its treatments and emotional distress in young women with breast cancer and their partners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using self-reported questionnaires. SAMPLE: 491 couples in which women were aged <45 years when diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer in four different groups of treatment: during chemotherapy with or without Trastuzumab; under Trastuzumab with or without hormone therapy; during hormone therapy; and during the follow-up period. METHODS: Patients and partners completed a questionnaire assessing their self-reported perceptions of the disease and treatments (Patient YW-BCI and Partner YW-BCI for the partners) and their emotional distress (CESD; STAI). FINDINGS: Patients reported more difficulties than partners in the management of child(ren) and everyday life, body image and sexuality, negative affectivity about the disease and apprehension about the future, career management, and finances. While the difficulties were generally more marked in the chemotherapy and Trastuzumab groups than in the hormone therapy and follow-up groups, the negative affectivity about the disease and apprehension about the future was high in all four groups, especially in patients. The partners reported more difficulties in sharing with close relatives, and even more in those groups reflecting the latest treatment phases. No difference appeared between patients and partners in couple cohesion and deterioration of relationships with relatives. Partners were less anxious than patients but as depressed as them. CONCLUSIONS: Difficulties of patients and partners seem particularly severe in the early care pathway, maybe reflecting better adjustment in women under surveillance and their partners. A longitudinal study will substantiate this finding and enable a better identification of some explanatory processes of these differences and similarities in the daily self-reported repercussions of the disease throughout the cancer care pathway. Implications for psychosocial oncology: It seems important to support young women with breast cancer and their partners, as our results evidence distress in both and differences according to the type of treatment the woman is currently receiving. Healthcare providers need consistent methods to identify and respond to couples' distress and reduce significant disparities in support.

[Focus: Drug-related osteonecrosis of the jaw]. / Les médicaments inducteurs d'ostéchimionécroses des maxillaires.

Antiresorptives and antiangiogenics are treatments that have proven effective in oncology and the treatment of osteoporosis and they are increasingly prescribed. The care of these patients requires collaboration between the prescriber and the oral health professional to establish an optimized treatment plan. Therapeutic education of the patient is essential for him to understand the issues of good oral health and the adverse effects that can be caused by these treatments. The management is essentially based on the individual benefit/risk balance resulting from the general, local and inherent of the molecule risk factors. Management of drug-related osteonecrosis of the jaw should be as early as possible.

Emotional distress and subjective impact of the disease in young women with breast cancer and their spouses.

AIM: Evaluate the influence of emotional distress of young women with breast cancer and their spouses on their daily subjective experience of the disease, through application of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. PATIENTS & METHODS: A total of 112 women under 45 years of age were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer and their spouses answered self-reported measures of anxiety, depression and subjective experience of the disease and its treatment. RESULTS: The patient's emotional distress influenced more the subjective experience of her spouse than the spouse's emotional distress influenced the patient. The spouse's difficulties depended as much on his own distress level as on the patient's distress level. CONCLUSION: These data confirm the importance of implementing couple-focused interventions.

Granocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) has significant efficacy as secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with solid tumors: results of a prospective study.

AIM: To carry out a prospective, multicenter and observational study describing prophylactic strategies [cycle delay, dose-reduction, (G-CSF) prescription] to prevent recurrence of neutropenic events (NE) in patients with solid tumors, and identify potential predictive factors of NE recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with an NE in a previous chemotherapy cycle (cycle A) without G-CSF support, followed for four cycles (B to E) were included in the study. NE was defined as any neutropenia grade 1-4, febrile or not, which impacted on subsequent chemotherapy cycles (cycle delay, or reduction, or prophylactic G-CSF). RESULTS: Data of 548 patients were analyzed, 378 (69%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 61.7 (12.3) years. WHO PS: 0-1: 88.3%, incidence of breast cancer: 40%, metastatic disease: 53.3%. Following the first NE episode, 44.5% of patients had cycle delay, 22.3% dose reduction and 466 (85%) received prophylactic G-CSF. NE recurrence rates were: 21.2% at cycle B, 18.6% at cycle C, 11.5% at cycle D and 12.9% at cycle E. G-CSF support (hazard ratio: 0.32, 0.24-0.43, p<0.001) was associated with lower NE recurrence. Pegfilgrastim seemed to offer the highest protection (hazard ratio; HR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.32; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Secondary G-CSF prophylaxis has significant efficacy in reducing the incidence of NE and should be considered as a valuable option.

Retrospective study of 19 patients with intramedullary spinal cord metastasis.

OBJECT: Intramedullary spinal cord metastasis (ISCM) is a rare but devastating complication of cancer. Due to both widespread MRI availability and longer survival of cancer patients, the probability of discovering an ISCM during the course of the disease has increased and raised issues regarding the management of these patients, and particularly the place of surgery. In this study, we assess predictive factors for surgical outcome and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a series of 19 patients consecutively admitted in our institution from 1993 to 2006 for ISCM, representing the second largest series published in the literature. MRI was performed on all patients. Thirteen underwent microsurgical excision of ISCM. Functional outcome was evaluated and factors influencing survival were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Median survival was statistically longer when surgery was performed (7.4 vs. 2.6 months). Preoperative neurological status, nature of primary cancer, presence of systemic and/or CNS metastases influenced survival, but differences were without statistical significance. Neurological status improved in 58% (11/19) of operated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal management of patients with ISCM is difficult due to the wide variety of clinical situations and the lack of controlled studies on the results of different therapeutic options. Diagnosis should be made as early as possible and surgical resection should be considered as the primary treatment whenever feasible, particularly in the case of rapidly progressive neurological deficits and when a clear cleavage plane exists. Our study shows that surgery could result in both increased survival rate and significant improvement of neurological function.

Phase II study of an oxaliplatin/vinorelbine combination in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pre-treated metastatic breast cancer.

A phase II study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an oxaliplatin (OXA)/vinorelbine (VNB) combination in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients pre-treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. Patients received OXA at 130 mg/m (2-h i.v.), day 1, and VNB days 1 and 8 at 24-26 mg/m repeated every 3 weeks. Forty-two patients (median age 54; 64% with liver metastasis, 67% taxane resistant/refractory and 38% anthracycline resistant/refractory) were treated. A median of 4 cycles of treatment was given per patient, with 31% receiving 6 or more. Eleven partial responses and 16 patients with stable disease (five lasting more than 4 months) in 41 eligible patients were seen, for an overall response rate of 26.8% (95% confidence interval 14.2-42.9). Median follow-up was 15.9 months (7.2-30.6), median time to progression was 3.4 months and estimated overall survival was 12.7 months (20 events). Thirty-three patients experienced (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2) grade 3-4 neutropenia (one case of febrile neutropenia) and three patients had severe constipation requiring hospitalization. Nine patients developed grade 3 OXA-specific neurotoxicity. There were no treatment-related deaths. We conclude that OXA 130 mg/m (day 1) and VNB 24 mg/m (day 1 and 8) combination given every 3 weeks is effective with a good safety profile in MBC patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

Phase I study of topotecan in combination with concurrent radiotherapy in adults with glioblastoma.

A phase I study was performed to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended dose of continuous intravenous infusion of topotecan in combination with radiotherapy (RT) in patients with previously untreated glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Twenty patients with histologically proven GBM and 1 with rhabdoid tumor were enrolled. After surgery or stereotactic biopsy, patients received cranial RT (60 Gy/30 fractions/40 days) and 3 cycles of topotecan as continuous infusion (CIV) from day 1 to 5 on weeks 1, 3, and 5 during RT. The dose of topotecan was escalated from 0.6 to 1.0 mg/m2/day. Four dose levels were tested. One grade 4 thrombocytopenia was seen at level 1 (topotecan dose 0.6 mg/m2/day; 6 patients). No dose-limiting toxicity was seen at level 2 (0.8 mg/m2/day; 3 patients) or an intermediate level of 2 bis (0.9 mg/m2/day; 6 patients). Six patients were included at level 3 (1.0 mg/m2/day), 4 of whom experienced dose-limiting toxicities, including 3 episodes of grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 1 platelet transfusion, 1 febrile neutropenia, and 1 grade 4 neutropenia of more than 7 days. Eighty percent of patients with GBM were alive at 12 months. The dose-limiting toxicity of topotecan administered as CIV for 5 days every 2 weeks is hematological. The maximum tolerated dose is 1.0 mg/m2/day and the recommended dose is 0.9 mg/m2/day. A phase II trial using the recommended dose of topotecan is ongoing.