Mail from Heaven.

A moving story about the nature of the doctor­patient relationship, this narrative describes a letter of gratitude from a breast cancer patient, written shortly before her death.

Medical oncologist's commitment in end-of-life care of cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients and family members can feel abandoned by their oncologist at the transition to end-of-life (eoL) care. In this study, we evaluated the level of satisfaction of family caregivers when the oncology team assisted the patient until death. METHODS: Two oncology units were reorganized to ensure continuity of care; oncologists trained in palliative care medicine assisted patients until death. Relatives who assisted the patient at home or at an inpatient hospice underwent a semi-structured phone interview >1 month after the patient's death. Satisfaction was measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from very dissatisfied (score 0) to very satisfied (score 100). RESULTS: Relatives of 65 patients were contacted, 55 accepted the interview. Patients were followed at home (41) or at an inpatient hospice (14), for 1-24 weeks (median 3 weeks). A specific question on the relevance of the oncologist having a role in EoL care produced a score of 82. The overall satisfaction score was higher than in our previous study in which a continuity of care model was not adopted, with a score improvement from 55/100 to 84/100 (p < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: A care program where the oncologist is involved in EoL management improved the satisfaction of caregivers of cancer patients. When a longstanding and trusting relationship has been established, the connection between the patient and the oncologist should not be lost.

Triple-negative breast cancer: current state of the art.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer, defined by a lack of expression of estrogen, progesterone and HER-2 receptors, accounts for 15% of all types of breast cancer. The subtype mainly includes a molecularly distinct subgroup, the basal-like subtype (accounting for 75% of all cases). We attempt to define triple-negative breast cancer and compare it with basal-like disease, review the molecular, pathologic and clinical features of triple-negative disease, provide an overview of a retrospective subset analysis of clinical trials, and outline ongoing therapeutic trials and possible paths for future research. METHODS: We collected data regarding classification, molecular and clinical features and treatment, drawn from the existing literature, including abstracts and verbal accounts. By the term "basal-like", we defined all cases where gene expression array or more sophisticated immunophenotypes are used for identification. When the analysis is restricted to clinical assay (immunohistochemistry), we refer to "triple-negative". RESULTS: Basal-like breast cancer expresses genes characteristic of basal epithelial cells, which include high-molecular weight basal cytokeratins (CK5/6, CK14, CK17), vimentin, p-cadherin, alpha B crystalline, caveolins 1 and 2 and EGFR. The expression of basal markers (basal cytokeratins and EGFR) is related to a worse prognosis and identifies a clinically distinct subgroup within the triple-negative breast cancer. BRCA1 mutations are present in 11% of triple-negative tumors and even more rare is BRCA2 deficiency. BR-CA1-associated breast cancers types are typically characterized by a high rate of DNA aberrations and defective DNA repair pathways (the so-called "BRCAness"). The use of regimens based on DNA-damaging agents, such as anthracyclines, platinum derivatives and cyclophosphamide seems a sensible option for this breast cancer subtypes. Clinical data support a strong sensitivity to primary chemotherapy with pathologic response rates ranging from 27-45% (with anthracyclines and taxanes) to more than 60% with platinum-based triplets. However, based on retrospective data, major response to chemotherapy does not carry better survival ("triple-negative paradox"). There is no specific targeted therapy in the armamentarium: ongoing trials include anti-angiogenic agents, anti-EGFR and EGFR-TK inhibitors, epothilones and PARP inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: A specific systemic regimen cannot yet be recommended. Moreover, only a few data are available on which treatment selection can be based. Use of the existing cytotoxic agents can be optimized for this patient subgroup by investigating the proliferative signals and the suitability of these signals as therapeutic targets, besides assessing the BRCA1-pathway in this subgroup as regards treatment. A greater understanding of the pathologic and molecular characteristics of this phenotype may lead to customized treatment for these patients.

The role of levamisole in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer patients: a randomized trial of 5-fluorouracil and levamisole versus 5-fluorouracil alone.

Adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and levamisole (Lev) have been considered standard treatment for stage III colon cancer patients. However, the uncertain contribution of Lev to the efficacy of treatment has led many oncologists to prefer the 5FU/leucovorin combination. To establish the role of Lev, we conducted a randomized trial comparing the 5FU/Lev combination with 5FU alone in patients with Dukes' C colon cancer. Patients with stage III colon cancer were randomized to receive 5FU alone (450 mg/m2 i.v. bolus daily for 5 days and then, beginning at day 28, weekly for 48 weeks) or the same plus Lev (50 mg orally three times/day for 3 days, repeated every 2 weeks for 1 year). From December 1994 to March 1998, 92 patients were assigned to receive 5FU/Lev, and 93 were assigned to receive 5FU alone. Leukopenia and hepatic toxicity were more frequent in patients receiving 5FU/Lev as compared with those receiving 5FU (respectively, p = 0.003 and p = 0.039), whereas other toxicities were equivalent and mild in both arms. After a median follow-up time of 48 months, 80 patients have had recurrences (40 in each arm) and no advantages in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival could be demonstrated for the combination arm. The addition of Lev to 5FU does not seem to be relevant for the clinical activity of this adjuvant regimen, whereas toxicity related to Lev should be considered when an adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer patients is proposed.