Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: Pathologic response rates but not tumor size, has an independent prognostic impact on survival.

AIM: We investigated the pathologic complete response rates (pCR) and survival outcomes of early breast cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) over 14 years at a French comprehensive cancer center and reported pCR and survival outcomes by tumor subtypes and size. METHODS: From January 2005 to December 2018, 1150 patients receiving NAC were identified. Correlations between cT stage, breast tumor response, axillary lymph node response, pCR, surgery, and outcomes were assessed. pCR was defined as (ypT0/ypTis) and (ypN0/pN0sn). RESULTS: A pCR was reached in 31.7% (365/1150) of patients and was strongly associated with tumor subtypes, but not with tumor size (pretreatment cT category). Luminal-B Her2-negative and triple-negative (TN) subtypes, cN1 status, older age, and no-pCR had an independent negative prognostic value. Overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were not significantly different for cT0-1 compared to cT2 stages. In Cox-model adjusted on in-breast pCR and pN status, ypN1 had a strong negative impact (OS, RFS, and MFS: HR = 3.153, 4.677, and 6.133, respectively), higher than no in-breast pCR (HR = 2.369, 2.252, and 2.323). A negative impact of no pCR on OS was observed for cN0 patients and TN tumors (HR = 4.972) or HER2-positive tumors (HR = 11.706), as well as in Luminal-B Her2-negative tumors on MFS (HR = 2.223) and for Luminal-A on RFS (HR = 4.465) and MFS (HR = 4.185). CONCLUSION: Achievement of pCR, but not tumor size (pretreatment cT category), has an independent prognostic impact on survival. These results suggest potential NAC benefits in patients with small tumors (<2 cm), even in absence of clinically suspicious lymph nodes. Residual lymph node disease after NAC is the most powerful adverse prognostic factor.

Posterior pelvic exenteration for ovarian cancer: surgical and oncological outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Posterior pelvic exenteration (PPE) can be required to achieve complete resection in ovarian cancer (OC) patients with large pelvic disease. This study aimed to analyze morbidity, complete resection rate, and survival of PPE. METHODS: Ninety patients who underwent PPE in our Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2010 and February 2021 were retrospectively identified. To analyze practice evolution, 2 periods were determined: P1 from 2010 to 2017 and P2 from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: A 82.2% complete resection rate after PPE was obtained, with rectal anastomosis in 96.7% of patients. Complication rate was at 30% (grade 3 in 9 patients), without significant difference according to periods or quality of resection. In a binary logistic regression adjusted on age and stoma, only age of 51-74 years old was associated with a lower rate of complication (odds ratio=0.223; p=0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals (OS and DFS) from initial diagnosis were 75.21 and 29.84 months, respectively. A negative impact on OS and DFS was observed in case of incomplete resection, and on DFS in case of final cytoreductive surgery (FCS: after ≥6 chemotherapy cycles). Age ≥75-years had a negative impact on DFS for new OC surgery. For patients with complete resection, OS and DFS were decreased in case of interval cytoreductive surgery and FCS in comparison with primary cytoreductive surgery. CONCLUSION: PPE is an effective surgical measure to achieve complete resection for a majority of patients. High rate of colorectal anastomosis was achieved without any mortality, with acceptable morbidity and high protective stoma rate.

Enhanced recovery after surgery program in older patients undergoing gynaecologic oncological surgery is feasible and safe.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs (ERP) include multimodal approaches of perioperative patient's clinical pathways designed to achieve early recovery after surgery and a decreased length of hospital stay (LOS). By allowing patients to return rapidly to their everyday surroundings, older patients are those who could take the greatest benefit from ERP. This is the first study to date to assess feasibility and safety of ERP on older patients undergoing gynaecologic oncological surgery. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected between December 2015 and September 2017 at the Institut Paoli-Calmettes, a French comprehensive cancer centre. All the patients included in the study were referred for hysterectomy and/or pelvic or para-aortic lymphadenectomy for gynaecological cancer. The primary objective was to achieve similar LOS in patients ≥70 years old compared to younger patients without increasing the proportion of complications and readmission rates. A binary (LOS < or ≥ 2 days) logistic regression was built, including age, Charlson score, BMI, ASA score, oncological indication, surgical procedures and surgical approaches. G8 score was estimated for all the ≥70 years old patients. RESULTS: Of a total of 329 patients, 75 were ≥70 years old and 254 were <70. Except a disparity in oncological indications with a higher proportion of endometrial cancer in the ≥70 years old group (56% vs. 27%; p < 0.01), there were no differences in patient's characteristics and surgical procedures. Age ≥ 70 years was associated with a longer LOS (means, 3.88 vs. 3.11 days; p = 0.024) only in univariate analysis. Considering the logistic regression, age was no longer associated with LOS. Total hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy and ASA score ≥ 3 were independently associated with longer LOS while mini-invasive techniques were associated with a shorter LOS. Morbidities and readmissions occurred respectively in 23% and 8% of the total population without any difference between the two groups. In the ≥70 years old population, G8 score was not predictive of LOS, morbidities or readmissions. CONCLUSION: Although it is already widely accepted that ERP improves early recovery, our study shows that ERP for patients over 70 years of age undergoing gynaecologic oncological surgery is as safe and feasible as on younger patients.

[Homeopathy in cancer patients: What does the "best" evidence tell us?] / Homéopathie et cancer, quelles sont les preuves ?

Homeopathic medicines are used by many patients with cancer, usually alongside conventional treatment. A recent report by the European Academies' Science Advisory Council concluded that "that there are no robust and reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective". This literature review aims to make the analysis of published controlled randomized trials involving homeopathic treatment in the field of oncology.