Cancer care for Ukrainian refugees: Strategic impact assessments in the early days of the conflict.

BACKGROUND: The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 has resulted in destruction of healthcare infrastructure and triggered the largest wave of internally displaced populations and refugees since World War Two. Conflicts in transitioned countries such as Ukraine create new non-communicable disease (NCD) challenges, especially for cancer care for refugees and humanitarian assistance in host countries. In the early days, rapid attempts were made to model possible impacts. METHODS: By evaluating open source intelligence used in the first three months of the conflict through snowball search methods, we aimed to address: (i) burden of cancer in Ukrainian population, specifically considering translating to the refugees population, and its cancer care capacity; ii) baseline capacity/strengths of cancer systems in initial host countries. Moreover, using a baseline scenario based on crude cancer incidence in Ukraine, and considering data from UNHCR, we estimated how cancer cases would be distributed across host countries. Finally, a surveillance assessment instrument was created, intersecting health system's capacity and influx of internally displaced populations and refugees. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The total new cancer patients per month in pre-conflict Ukraine was estimated as 13,106, of which < 1 % are paediatric cases. The estimated cancer cases in the refugee population (combining prevalent and incident), assuming 7.5 million refugees by July 2022 and a female:male ratio of 9:1, was 33,121 individuals (Poland: 19284; Hungary: 3484; Moldova: 2651; Slovakia: 2421; Romania: 5281). According to our assessments, Poland is the only neighbouring country classified as green/yellow for cancer capacity, i.e. sufficient ablility to absorb additional burden into national health system; Slovakia we graded as yellow, Hungary and Romania as yellow/red and Moldova as red.

International multidisciplinary expert panel consensus on breast reconstruction and radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence challenges clinical decision-making when breast reconstruction is considered in the context of radiotherapy. Current literature was evaluated and key statements on topical issues were generated and discussed by an expert panel at the International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting in Milan 2017. METHODS: Studies on radiotherapy and breast reconstruction (1985 to September 2017) were screened using MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. The literature review yielded 30 controversial key questions. A set of key statements was derived and the highest levels of clinical evidence (LoE) for each of these were summarized. Nineteen panellists convened for dedicated discussions at the International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting to express agreement, disagreement or abstention for the generated key statements. RESULTS: The literature review identified 1522 peer-reviewed publications. A list of 22 key statements was produced, with the highest LoE recorded for each statement. These ranged from II to IV, with most statements (11 of 22, 50 per cent) supported by LoE III. There was full consensus for nine (41 per cent) of the 22 key statements, and more than 75 per cent agreement was reached for half (11 of 22). CONCLUSION: Poor evidence exists on which to base patient-informed consent. Low-quality studies are conflicting with wide-ranging treatment options, precluding expert consensus regarding optimal type and timing of breast reconstruction in the context of radiotherapy. There is a need for high-quality evidence from prospective registries and randomized trials in this field.

ANTECEDENTES: El hecho de que la evidencia disponible sea conflictiva supone un reto para la toma de decisiones a la hora de considerar la reconstrucción mamaria en el contexto de radioterapia (radiotherapy, RT). En el seno de un panel de expertos reunidos durante el International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting celebrado en Milán en 2017, se revisó la literatura disponible y se generaron y discutieron los aspectos más relevantes. MÉTODOS: Se hizo una búsqueda bibliográfica de los estudios de RT y reconstrucción mamaria (1985-septiembre de 2017) en las bases MEDLINE, EMBASE y CENTRAL. La revisión de la literatura permitió identificar 30 cuestiones clave controvertidas. A partir de ellas, se construyeron una serie de afirmaciones, para las que se obtuvo el mayor nivel de evidencia (levels of clinical evidence, LoE) posible. El acuerdo, desacuerdo o abstención respecto a las cuestiones propuestas fueron el resultado de las discusiones de 19 expertos reunidos durante el International Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Meeting. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 1.522 artículos publicados en revistas con peer review. Se elaboró una lista de 22 afirmaciones clave y se anotó el LoE más alto obtenido para cada una de ellas. El grado de variabilidad fue de II a IV, pero la mayoría de las afirmaciones (54,5%) obtuvieron un LoE III. Hubo un consenso total en el 41% (9/22) de las afirmaciones, mientras que se obtuvo más de un 75% de acuerdo en la mitad de las afirmaciones (11/22). CONCLUSIÓN: La evidencia en la que basar el consentimiento informado en estos pacientes es escasa. Se trata de estudios de baja calidad con gran variedad de opciones terapéuticas, que dificultan el consenso de los expertos acerca del tipo y momento óptimo para la reconstrucción mamaria en el contexto de RT. Para obtener datos de mayor calidad se precisan estudios prospectivos y ensayos clínicos en este campo.

Evaluation of applying IHC4 as a prognostic model in the translational study of Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES): PathIES.

BACKGROUND: Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) was a randomised study that showed a survival benefit of switching adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2-3 years from tamoxifen to exemestane. This PathIES aimed to assess the role of immunohistochemical (IHC)4 score in determining the relative sensitivity to either tamoxifen or sequential treatment with tamoxifen and exemestane. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary tumour samples were available for 1274 patients (27% of IES population). Only patients for whom the IHC4 score could be calculated (based on oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2 and Ki67) were included in this analysis (N = 430 patients). The clinical score (C) was based on age, grade, tumour size and nodal status. The association of clinicopathological parameters, IHC4(+C) scores and treatment effect with time to distant recurrence-free survival (TTDR) was assessed in univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses. A modified clinical score (PathIEscore) (N = 350) was also estimated. RESULTS: Our results confirm the prognostic importance of the original IHC4, alone and in conjunction with clinical scores, but no significant difference with treatment effects was observed. The combined IHC4 + Clinical PathIES score was prognostic for TTDR (P < 0.001) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 5.54 (95% CI 1.29-23.70) for a change from 1st quartile (Q1) to Q1-Q3 and HR of 15.54 (95% CI 3.70-65.24) for a change from Q1 to Q4. CONCLUSION: In the PathIES population, the IHC4 score is useful in predicting long-term relapse in patients who remain disease-free after 2-3 years. This is a first trial to suggest the extending use of IHC4+C score for prognostic indication for patients who have switched endocrine therapies at 2-3 years and who remain disease-free after 2-3 years.

De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017.

The 15th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017 in Vienna, Austria reviewed substantial new evidence on loco-regional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer. Treatments were assessed in light of their intensity, duration and side-effects, seeking where appropriate to escalate or de-escalate therapies based on likely benefits as predicted by tumor stage and tumor biology. The Panel favored several interventions that may reduce surgical morbidity, including acceptance of 2 mm margins for DCIS, the resection of residual cancer (but not baseline extent of cancer) in women undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, acceptance of sentinel node biopsy following neoadjuvant treatment of many patients, and the preference for neoadjuvant therapy in HER2 positive and triple-negative, stage II and III breast cancer. The Panel favored escalating radiation therapy with regional nodal irradiation in high-risk patients, while encouraging omission of boost in low-risk patients. The Panel endorsed gene expression signatures that permit avoidance of chemotherapy in many patients with ER positive breast cancer. For women with higher risk tumors, the Panel escalated recommendations for adjuvant endocrine treatment to include ovarian suppression in premenopausal women, and extended therapy for postmenopausal women. However, low-risk patients can avoid these treatments. Finally, the Panel recommended bisphosphonate use in postmenopausal women to prevent breast cancer recurrence. The Panel recognized that recommendations are not intended for all patients, but rather to address the clinical needs of the majority of common presentations. Individualization of adjuvant therapy means adjusting to the tumor characteristics, patient comorbidities and preferences, and managing constraints of treatment cost and access that may affect care in both the developed and developing world.

Prognostic and predictive value of ERß1 and ERß2 in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)-first results from PathIES†.

BACKGROUND: Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) was a randomised study that showed a survival benefit of switching adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2-3 years from tamoxifen to exemestane. PathIES aimed to assess the potential prognostic and predictive value of ERß1 and ERß2 expression in primary tumours in order to determine benefit in the two treatment arms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary tumour samples were available for 1256 patients (27% IES population). ERß1 and ERß2 expression was dichotomised at the median IHC score (high if ERß1 ≥ 191, ERß2 ≥ 164). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for clinicopathological factors. Treatment effects with biomarker expressions were determined by interaction tests. Analysis explored effects of markers both as a continuous variable and with dichotomised cut-offs. RESULTS: Neither ERß1 nor ERß2 were associated with disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) in the whole cohort. In patients treated with continued tamoxifen, high ERß1 expression compared with low was associated with better DFS [HR = 0.38:95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.68, P = 0.001]. DFS benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen (HR = 0.40:95% CI 0.22-0.70) was found in the low ERß1 subgroup (interaction P = 0.01). No significant difference with treatment was observed for ERß2 expression in either DFS or OS. CONCLUSION: In the PathIES population, exemestane appeared to be superior to tamoxifen among patients with low ERß1 expression but not in those with high ERß1 expression. This is the first trial of its kind to report a parameter potentially predicting benefit of an aromatase inhibitor when compared with tamoxifen and an independent validation is warranted.

Randomized, phase III trial of figitumumab in combination with erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in patients with nonadenocarcinoma nonsmall-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Figitumumab (CP-751,871) is a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that inhibits the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor. This multicenter, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy of figitumumab plus erlotinib compared with erlotinib alone in patients with pretreated, nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (stage IIIB/IV or recurrent disease with nonadenocarcinoma histology) who had previously received at least one platinum-based regimen were randomized to receive open-label figitumumab (20 mg/kg) plus erlotinib 150 mg/day or erlotinib alone every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 583 patients randomized, 579 received treatment. The study was closed early by an independent data safety monitoring committee due to results crossing the prespecified futility boundary. At the final analysis, median OS was 5.7 months for figitumumab plus erlotinib and 6.2 months for erlotinib alone [hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.31; P = 0.35]. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 months for figitumumab plus erlotinib and 2.6 months for erlotinib alone (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90-1.29; P = 0.43). Treatment-related nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 18% and 5% of patients in the figitumumab arm or erlotinib alone arm, respectively. There were nine treatment-related deaths (three related to both drugs, four related to erlotinib alone and two related to figitumumab). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of figitumumab to erlotinib did not improve OS in patients with advanced, pretreated, nonadenocarcinoma NSCLC. Clinical development of figitumumab has been discontinued. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT00673049.

Final results from PRIME: randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Panitumumab Randomized trial In combination with chemotherapy for Metastatic colorectal cancer to determine Efficacy (PRIME) demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus FOLFOX4 as first-line treatment of wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the primary end point of the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks + FOLFOX4 (arm 1) or FOLFOX4 (arm 2). This prespecified final descriptive analysis of efficacy and safety was planned for 30 months after the last patient was enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 1183 patients were randomized. Median PFS for WT KRAS mCRC was 10.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.3-11.4 months] for arm 1 and 8.6 months (95% CI 7.5-9.5 months) for arm 2; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.95; P = 0.01. Median overall survival (OS) for WT KRAS mCRC was 23.9 months (95% CI 20.3-27.7 months) for arm 1 and 19.7 months (95% CI 17.6-22.7 months) for arm 2; HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.73-1.06; P = 0.17 (68% OS events). An exploratory analysis of updated survival (>80% OS events) was carried out which demonstrated improvement in OS; HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.70-0.98; P = 0.03 for WT KRAS mCRC. The adverse event profile was consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In WT KRAS mCRC, PFS was improved, objective response was higher, and there was a trend toward improved OS with panitumumab-FOLFOX4, with significant improvement in OS observed in an updated analysis of survival in patients with WT KRAS mCRC treated with panitumumab + FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 alone (P = 0.03). These data support a positive benefit-risk profile for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 for patients with previously untreated WT KRAS mCRC. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate patients for treatment with panitumumab.

Pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an independent predictive factor irrespective of simplified breast cancer intrinsic subtypes: a landmark and two-step approach analyses from the EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response (pCR) following chemotherapy is strongly associated with both breast cancer subtype and long-term survival. Within a phase III neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial, we sought to determine whether the prognostic implications of pCR, TP53 status and treatment arm (taxane versus non-taxane) differed between intrinsic subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either six cycles of anthracycline-based chemotherapy or three cycles of docetaxel then three cycles of eprirubicin/docetaxel (T-ET). pCR was defined as no evidence of residual invasive cancer (or very few scattered tumour cells) in primary tumour and lymph nodes. We used a simplified intrinsic subtypes classification, as suggested by the 2011 St Gallen consensus. Interactions between pCR, TP53 status, treatment arm and intrinsic subtype on event-free survival (EFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were studied using a landmark and a two-step approach multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Sufficient data for pCR analyses were available in 1212 (65%) of 1856 patients randomized. pCR occurred in 222 of 1212 (18%) patients: 37 of 496 (7.5%) luminal A, 22 of 147 (15%) luminal B/HER2 negative, 51 of 230 (22%) luminal B/HER2 positive, 43 of 118 (36%) HER2 positive/non-luminal, 69 of 221(31%) triple negative (TN). The prognostic effect of pCR on EFS did not differ between subtypes and was an independent predictor for better EFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.40, P < 0.001 in favour of pCR], DMFS (HR = 0.32, P < 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.32, P < 0.001). Chemotherapy arm was an independent predictor only for EFS (HR = 0.73, P = 0.004 in favour of T-ET). The interaction between TP53, intrinsic subtypes and survival outcomes only approached statistical significance for EFS (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: pCR is an independent predictor of favourable clinical outcomes in all molecular subtypes in a two-step multivariate analysis. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 Trial registration number NCT00017095.

Prognostic value of microRNA expression in operable non-small cell lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: About 50% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients develop distant metastases following pulmonary resection. Currently, there are no reliable factors allowing for individual selection of high-risk patients for adjuvant systemic therapies. METHODS: We assessed by quantitative reverse transcription PCR microRNA (miRNA) expression in 273 stage I-IIIA NSCLC samples. Expression of 677 miRNAs was evaluated in fresh-frozen tumour samples in the training cohort of 50 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) patients who underwent curative surgery. Of those, 20 patients developed distant metastases, and 30 were free of recurrence for >4 years. In the second step, miRNAs with highest predictive value for distant relapse were re-evaluated in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material in an independent group of 134 stage I-IIIA SCC patients. Additionally, the same miRNAs were investigated in 89 lung adenocarcinoma (AC) patients and in normal lung parenchyma (NLP). RESULTS: In the training cohort of SCC, six miRNAs were differently expressed in the non-recurrent vs recurrent groups and correlated with distant recurrence-free survival, however none reached the level of significance after correction for multiple testing. Of these six miRNAs, miR-662, -192 and -192* were confirmed as prognostic in the independent SCC cohort. Expression of miR-128, -10b, -502-3p and -192 differed between SCC and AC, and miR-128 and -192 - between NLP and NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: We identified three new miRNAs predictive of distant relapse in operable SCC. Future miRNA studies should account for differences between NSCLC subtypes.

Trastuzumab retreatment after relapse on adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: final results of the Retreatment after HErceptin Adjuvant trial.

AIMS: Trastuzumab, in combination with chemotherapy, is the standard of care for patients with early and metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. The Retreatment after HErceptin Adjuvant trial assessed the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab plus a taxane as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had relapsed after adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 43 patients with HER2-positive MBC who had received previous adjuvant trastuzumab for ≥10 months, with a relapse-free interval of ≥6 months after the last adjuvant trastuzumab dose, were recruited. Eligible patients (n = 41) were assigned to receive trastuzumab, either weekly or every 3 weeks, in combination with docetaxel or paclitaxel until disease progression. RESULTS: At the final analysis, with a median follow-up time of 40 months, a positive response was observed in 25/41 patients (61%; 95% confidence interval: 48.7-80.4%), stable disease in 7/41 (17.1%) and progressive disease in 6/41 (14.6%). Three patients had missing response assessments (one had no measurable lesions at baseline and two had no post-baseline tumour assessments). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval: 6-11 months) and the median overall survival was 25.0 months (16-33 months). No correlation was found between response rate, PFS or overall survival and the duration of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment, trastuzumab-free interval, relapse-free interval, hormone receptor status or type of pre-metastatic treatment. The most common adverse events (all grades) were alopecia (32%) and diarrhoea (32%). Six patients (14.6%) developed at least one serious adverse event. No congestive heart failure or any unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Trastuzumab, in combination with a taxane, is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment for MBC in patients who relapse after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy.

Molecular profiles of non-small cell lung cancers in cigarette smoking and never-smoking patients.

PURPOSE: Molecular features of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in never-smokers are not well recognized. We assessed the expression of genes potentially related to lung cancer etiology in smoking vs. never-smoking NSCLC patients. METHODS: We assayed frozen tumor samples from surgically resected 31 never-smoking and 54 clinically pair-matched smoking NSCLC patients, and from corresponding normal lung tissue from 27 and 43 patients, respectively. Expression of 21 genes, including cell membrane kinases, sex hormone receptors, transcription factors, growth factors and others was assessed by reverse transcription - quantitative PCR. RESULTS: Expression of 5 genes was significantly higher in tumors of non-smokers vs. smokers: CSF1R (p<0.0001), RRAD (p<0.0001), PR (p=0.0004), TGFBR2 (p=0.0027) and EPHB6 (p=0.0033). Expression of AKR1B10 (p<0.0001), CDKN2A (p<0.0001), CHRNA6 (p<0.0001), SOX9 (p<0.0001), survivin (p<0.0001) and ER2 (p=0.002) was significantly higher in tumors compared to normal lung tissue. Expression of AR (p<0.0001), EPHB6 (p<0.0001), PR (p<0.0001), TGFBR2 (p<0.0001), TGFBR3 (p<0.0001), ER1 (p=0.0006) and DLG1 (p=0.0016) was significantly lower in tumors than in normal lung tissue. Expression of IGF2 was higher in tumors than in healthy lung tissue in never-smokers (p=0.003), and expression of AHR (p<0.0001), CSF1R (p<0.0001) and RRAD (p<0.0001) was lower in tumors than in healthy lung tissue in smokers. CONCLUSION: Expression of several genes in NSCLC is strongly related to smoking history. Lower expression of PR and higher expression of ER2 in tumors suggests a possibility of hormonal therapeutic intervention in selected NSCLC patients. Distinct molecular features of NSCLC in never-smokers, e.g. CHRNA6 upregulation, may prompt new treatment strategies.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors and derived treatments.

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors are used to treat advanced lung cancer patients for almost a decade. Current knowledge on their role in the first or subsequent lines of therapy serves as a model for other targeted therapies in development. Several molecular predictors of outcomes were successfully identified in preclinical and clinical studies. Evaluation of EGFR-activating mutations is currently used to define biologically distinct patient subsets with important consequences for prognosis and therapy. Ongoing translational and clinical research exploring EGFR inhibition in lung cancer focuses on better understanding of biology of EGFR-driven disease, efficacy of novel irreversible EGFR inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, efficacy of combination strategies, and attempts to move EGFR inhibitors into therapy portfolio for early-stage disease.

Increased MET and HGF gene copy numbers are associated with trastuzumab failure in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether copy number gain of MET or hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) affect trastuzumab sensitivity in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: We analysed 130 HER2-positive MBC treated with trastuzumab-based therapy. MET and HGF gene copy numbers (GCN) were assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in primary breast cancer samples. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was applied to find the best cutoff point for both MET and HGF GCN. RESULTS: MET FISH-positive cases (N=36, mean 3.72) had a significantly higher trastuzumab failure rate (44.4% vs 16.0%; P=0.001) and a significantly shorter time to progression (5.7 vs 9.9 months; HR 1.74; P=0.006) than MET FISH-negative cases (N=94, mean <3.72). Hepatocyte growth factor GCN was evaluated in 84 cases (64.6%). Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified 33 HGF FISH-positive patients (mean HGF GCN 3.01). HGF FISH-positive status was significantly associated with higher risk of failure (30.3% vs 7.8%; P=0.007) as compared with HGF FISH-negative cases (N=51, mean <3.01). MET and HGF FISH-positive status was highly correlated (P<0.001) and combination of both biomarkers did not increase predictive value of either considered separately. CONCLUSION: High GCNs of MET and HGF associate with an increased risk of trastuzumab-based therapy failure in HER2-positive MBC.

Third CECOG consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

A phase III randomized study of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without PF-3512676 (TLR9 agonist) as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This open-label phase III study assessed the addition of Toll-like receptor 9-activating oligodeoxynucleotide PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive six or fewer 3-week cycles of i.v. gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin alone (75 mg/m2 on day 1, control arm) or combined with s.c. PF-3512676 0.2 mg/kg on days 8 and 15 of each chemotherapy cycle and weekly thereafter until progression or unacceptable toxicity (experimental arm). No crossover was planned. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 839 patients were randomized. Baseline demographics were well balanced. Median OS (11.0 versus 10.7 months; P=0.98) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (both 5.1 months) were similar between groups. Grade≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs), injection-site reactions, and influenza-like symptoms were more frequently reported among patients receiving PF-3512676. At the first-interim analysis, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended study discontinuation. Administration of PF-3512676 was halted based on efficacy futility and increased grade≥3 AEs (experimental arm). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy did not improve OS or PFS but did increase toxicity.

Long-term endometrial effects in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer participating in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)--a randomised controlled trial of exemestane versus continued tamoxifen after 2-3 years tamoxifen.

BACKGROUND: The antiestrogen tamoxifen may have partial estrogen-like effects on the postmenopausal uterus. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used after initial tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal early breast cancer due to their mechanism of action: a potential benefit being a reduction of uterine abnormalities caused by tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sonographic uterine effects of the steroidal AI exemestane were studied in 219 women participating in the Intergroup Exemestane Study: a large trial in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (or unknown) early breast cancer, disease free after 2-3 years of tamoxifen, randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or switch to exemestane to complete 5 years adjuvant treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with abnormal (> or =5 mm) endometrial thickness (ET) on transvaginal ultrasound 24 months after randomisation. RESULTS: The analysis included 183 patients. Two years after randomisation, the proportion of patients with abnormal ET was significantly lower in the exemestane compared with tamoxifen arm (36% versus 62%, respectively; P = 0.004). This difference emerged within 6 months of switching treatment (43.5% versus 65.2%, respectively; P = 0.01) and disappeared within 12 months of treatment completion (30.8% versus 34.7%, respectively; P = 0.67). CONCLUSION: Switching from tamoxifen to exemestane significantly reverses endometrial thickening associated with continued tamoxifen.

Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) include a rapidly expanding repertoire of medical, surgical and supportive care measures. DESIGN: To provide timely and evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostic workup and treatment of patients with MBC, an international expert panel reviewed and discussed the evidence available from clinical trials regarding diagnostic, therapeutic and supportive measures with emphasis on their impact on the quality of life and overall survival of patients with MBC. RESULTS: Evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostic workup, endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, use of targeted therapies and bisphosphonates, surgical treatment and supportive care measures in the management of patients with MBC were formulated. CONCLUSIONS: The present consensus manuscript updates evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment of MBC depending on disease-associated and biological variables.