Prevalence of biological types of breast cancer and their influence on disease staging and therapeutic management - a single-center study.

According to the St. Gallen 2011 consensus, proper qualification of breast cancer patients for treatment requires taking into consideration the division into biological types of neoplasms. The goal of this work was to assess the prevalence of all biological types of breast cancer in the population of Kuyavian-Pomeranian province. We determined the influence of particular types of neoplasms on the degree of disease progression and the choice of therapeutic management. The study was conducted on a group of 2653 patients treated surgically due to malignant breast tumors in the Oncology Centre in Bydgoszcz. In the analyzed clinical material we determined the biological type of cancer as well as other prognostic factors. The most commonly identified types of cancer were luminal B1 type (38.4%) and luminal A type (27.4% of cases), followed by a triple-negative type, luminal B2 type and HER2-positive type (respectively: 11.4%, 10.2%, and 6.9% of patients). Estrogen receptors were present in 81.1% and progesterone receptors in 71.4% of subjects. HER2 overexpression was identified in 17.3% of patients. Routine use of a biology-based division into cancer types influences the choice of anti-cancer treatment. Diagnosis of luminal A type of tumor more commonly than other biological types of cancer coexists with lower clinical and pathological disease staging. It allows for more frequent use of sparing surgical techniques in patients. It also makes systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy unnecessary in the majority of patients (differences in such cases exhibit statistical significance of p < 0.0001).

Acute decompensated heart failure as a reason of premature chemotherapy discontinuation may be independent of a lifetime doxorubicin dose in lymphoma patients with cardiovascular disorders.

BACKGROUND: Algorithm of anthracycline-based chemotherapy with favourable cardio-oncological outcome should be clearly re-defined for lymphoma patients with significant pre-existing cardiovascular diseases. A clinical benefit of liposomal forms of anthracycline is still debatable. METHODS: Polish registry included observations of 138 lymphoma patients with concomitant cardiovascular disorders who received liposomal doxorubicin as cardioprotective alternative of conventional form. It was created to analyse the importance of a strategy of administration of conventional/liposomal doxorubicin and a lifetime doxorubicin dose for development of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) as a reason of premature chemotherapy discontinuation. RESULTS: ADHF was the cause of premature termination of chemotherapy only in 11 patients (7.97%). The five new episodes of ADHF related to liposomal doxorubicin were recorded in subgroup of 70 patients with pre-existing heart failure (7.14%). There was the similar incidence of ADHF when liposomal doxorubicin was applied after conventional form in dose 200mg/m2 or if earlier signs of iatrogenic myocardial damage was recognised: 5 cases in subgroup of 51 patients with baseline cardiovascular risk factors (9.8%). ADHF was observed in one of 17 patients (5.88%) receiving liposomal doxorubicin as second line chemotherapy after first line with conventional doxorubicin. Consequently throughout the study group ADHF didn't depend on the total cumulative dose of all types of doxorubicin: OR=0.85; 95%CI: 0.66-1.10; p=0.22 for each 50mg/m2. CONCLUSION: The schedule of administration of conventional/liposomal doxorubicin can decide that lifetime combined doses of anthracyclines become insignificant for ADHF occurrence and premature discontinuation of chemotherapy in lymphoma patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disturbances.

Clinical practice in febrile neutropenia risk assessment and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in Poland.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The first aim was to investigate the knowledge and awareness of oncologists concerning febrile neutropenia (FN) risk assessment and indications for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (PP), based on current therapeutic guidelines (PTOK and EORTC). The second aim was to educate the oncologists on best practices for risk assessment and neutropenia management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The project participants included 169 oncologists from 7 regions working in large specialist oncological centres, university hospitals, regional and city hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics, and oncological wards in small local hospitals. The participants completed a questionnaire based on seven prepared clinical cases of patients with different tumour types and patient characteristics, receiving chemotherapy (CT), and with different levels of FN risk. Participants answered questions related to FN risk assessment and G-CSF use. After completing the questionnaire, the participants proceeded to an educational module in which they were provided with an analysis of correct diagnostic and therapeutic procedures according to the PTOK and EORTC guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Febrile neutropenia risk assessment was found to be a routine procedure performed for over 90% of the clinical cases by the participant oncologists. However, the FN risk assessment of clinical cases was correct and consistent with therapeutic guidelines in only 65% of responses. Indications for G-CSF PP were properly identified in 76% of responses and it appeared that indications for G-CSF PP were more likely to be correctly identified in patients receiving high-risk or low-risk regimens than in those receiving intermediate-risk regimens, where the decision to give G-CSF PP is based on additional assessment of patient risk factors. The vast majority of participants who correctly identified the need for PP administered G-CSF in accordance with the dose and schedule recommended by PTOK and EORTC.