Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant plus palbociclib or placebo in endocrine-sensitive, hormone receptor-positive/HER2-advanced breast cancer: GEICAM/2014-12 (FLIPPER).

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of adding palbociclib to fulvestrant as first-line treatment in hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative endocrine-sensitive advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients remains uncharacterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized (1:1), double-blind, phase II study, postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC with de novo metastatic disease or those who relapsed after >12 months of adjuvant endocrine therapy received palbociclib/fulvestrant or placebo/fulvestrant. Stratification was based on recurrent versus de novo metastatic disease and visceral involvement. The primary objective was one-year progression-free survival (PFS-1y) rate. The sample size was 190 patients. The two-sided alpha of 0.2, 80% of power to detect a difference between the arms, assuming PFS rates of 0.695 and 0.545 for palbociclib/fulvestrant and placebo/fulvestrant, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 189 patients were randomized to palbociclib/fulvestrant ([n = 94] or placebo/fulvestrant [n = 95]). 45.5% and 60.3% of patients had de novo metastatic disease and visceral involvement, respectively. PFS-1y rates were 83.5% and 71.9% in the palbociclib/fulvestrant and placebo/fulvestrant arms, (HR 0.55, 80% CI 0.36-0.83, P = 0.064). The median PFS were 31.8 and 22.0 months for the palbociclib/fulvestrant and placebo/fulvestrant arms (aHR 0.48, 80% CI 0.37-0.64, P = 0.001). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (68.1% vs. 0%), leucopenia (26.6% vs. 0%), anemia (3.2% vs. 0%), and lymphopenia (14.9% vs. 2.1%) for the palbociclib/fulvestrant and placebo/fulvestrant, respectively. The most frequent non-hematologic grade 3-4 adverse event was fatigue (4.3% vs. 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib/fulvestrant demonstrated better PFS-1y rates and median PFS than placebo/fulvestrant in HR-positive/HER2-negative endocrine-sensitive ABC patients.

Multidisciplinary consensus on the criteria for fertility preservation in cancer patients.

Infertility is one of the main sequelae of cancer and its treatment in both children and adults of reproductive age. It is, therefore, essential that oncologists and haematologists provide adequate information about the risk of infertility and the possibilities for its preservation before starting treatment. Although many international clinical guidelines address this issue, this document is the first Spanish multidisciplinary guideline in paediatric and adult oncological patients. Experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology, the Spanish Fertility Society, the Spanish Society of Haematology and Haemotherapy, the Spanish Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology and the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology have collaborated to develop a multidisciplinary consensus.

Olaparib in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status: a GEICO phase II trial (ROLANDO study).

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence for the benefit of olaparib in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) patients with BRCA wild-type tumors. This study investigated whether this combination of a DNA-damaging chemotherapy plus olaparib is effective in PROC regardless BRCA status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian carcinoma and one previous PROC recurrence were enrolled regardless of BRCA status. Patients with ≤4 previous lines (up to 5 in BRCA-mut) with at least one previous platinum-sensitive relapse were included; primary PROC was allowed only in case of BRCA-mut. Patients initially received six cycles of olaparib 300 mg b.i.d. (biduum) + intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) 40 mg/m2 (PLD40) every 28 days, followed by maintenance with olaparib 300 mg b.i.d. until progression or toxicity. The PLD dose was reduced to 30 mg/m2 (PLD30) due to toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months (6m-PFS) by RECIST version 1.1. A proportion of 40% 6m-PFS or more was considered of clinical interest. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2020, 31 PROC patients were included. BRCA mutations were present in 16%. The median of previous lines was 2 (range 1-5). The overall disease control rate was 77% (partial response rate of 29% and stable disease rate of 48%). After a median follow-up of 10 months, the 6m-PFS and median PFS were 47% and 5.8 months, respectively. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 74% of patients, with neutropenia/anemia being the most frequent. With PLD30 serious AEs were less frequent than with PLD40 (21% versus 47%, respectively); moreover, PLD30 was associated with less PLD delays (32% versus 38%) and reductions (16% versus 22%). CONCLUSIONS: The PLD-olaparib combination has shown significant activity in PROC regardless of BRCA status. PLD at 30 mg/m2 is better tolerated in the combination.

Gender influence on work satisfaction and leadership for medical oncologists: a survey of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

BACKGROUND: Women represent an increasing proportion of the oncology workforce; however, globally this does not translate into leadership roles, reflecting disparities in career opportunities between men and women. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) undertook a survey to investigate gender disparity in the Spanish oncology context. DESIGN: An online survey was made available to SEOM medical oncologists between February and May 2019. It included demographics, professional context and achievements, parenthood and family conciliation issues, workplace gender bias, and approaches to address disparities. RESULTS: Of the 316 eligible respondents, 71.5% were women, 59.5% were aged 45 or younger, and 66.1% had children. Among women, 12.4% were division or unit heads, compared with 45.5% of men, with most women (74.3%) being attending medical oncologists, compared with 45.5% of men. More males were professors (34.4% versus 14.2% of females), had a PhD (46.7% versus 28.8%), and/or had led clinical research groups (41.1% versus 9.7%). Spending time overseas after completing a residency was also more common for men than women (34.4% versus 20.4%). Professional satisfaction was similar between genders, driven primarily by patient care and intellectual stimulation. More women (40.7%) considered parenthood to have a strong negative impact on their career, compared with men (9.0%). Main perceived barriers to gender equality included a lack of work-life balance (72.6% women, 44.4% men), bias of peers and superiors (50.0% women, 18.9% men), and different career goals (41.2% women, 24.4% men). Preferred solutions included educational programs and scholarships (52.9%), communication and leadership training (35.8%), childcare at conferences (33.2%), and postmaternity return-to-work incentives (32.0%). CONCLUSION: There is a clear paucity of equal opportunities for female oncologists in Spain. This can be addressed by encouraging professional development and merit recognition particularly for younger female oncologists, and empowering women to be involved in management and leadership of institutions and professional societies.

SEOM clinical guideline for secondary prevention (2019).

Cancer is one of the major public health problems in our society. It is estimated that more than 18 million new cases are diagnosed worldwide every year; 280,000 in Spain. Incidence in following a growing trend. This epidemic could be controlled with research into new treatments and, above all, with adequate prevention. Primary prevention could prevent avoid up to half of all cases. For many others, secondary prevention is essential, as it make diagnosis possible in the stages of the disease when it is easily curable. These guidelines present the scientific evidence regarding secondary prevention in tumors in which its use is well-accepted: breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, lung, ovarian, melanoma, and gastric cancer.

A retrospective, multicenter study of the efficacy of lapatinib plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both: the Trastyvere study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lapatinib (L) and trastuzumab (T) combination in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with T and/or L. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, post-authorized, multicenter study including patients with HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the combination of L-T. Concomitant endocrine therapy, as well as brain metastasis and/or prior exposure to L, were allowed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients from 14 institutions were included. The median age was 59.8 years. The median number of prior T regimens in the advanced setting was 3 and 73 patients had received a prior L regimen. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 34.8% (95% CI 26.1-43.5). Among other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 21.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.9 and 21.6 months, respectively. Heavily pretreated and ≥ 3 metastatic organ patients showed lower CBR and PFS than patients with a low number of previous regimens and < 3 metastatic organs. Moreover, CBR did not significantly change in L-pretreated compared with L-naïve patients (31.5% versus 40.5% for L-pretreated versus L-naïve). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 19 patients (16.5%). CONCLUSION: The combination of L-T is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in heavily pretreated patients and remains active among patients progressing on prior L-based therapy. Our study suggests that the L-T regimen is a safe and active chemotherapy-free option for MBC patients previously treated with T and/or L.

Evolution of older patients diagnosed with early breast cancer in Spain between 1998 and 2001 included in El Alamo III project.

INTRODUCTION: An increase in the number of cancer cases is expected in the near future. Breast cancer (BC) mortality rates increase with age even when adjusted for other variables. Here we analyzed BC disease-free survival (BCDFS) and BC specific survival (BCSS) in the El Alamo III BC registry of GEICAM Spanish Breast Cancer Group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: El Alamo III is a retrospective registry of BC patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2001. Patients with stage I-III invasive BC of age groups 55-64 years (y), 70-74 years and ≥ 75 years were included. Patients and tumors characteristics, treatments and recurrences and deaths were analyzed. RESULTS: 4343 patients were included within the following age intervals: 2288 (55-64 years), 960 (70-74 years), and 1095 (≥ 75 years). Older patients (≥ 70 years) were diagnosed with more advanced tumors (stage III) than younger patients (21.5% versus 13.4%, p < 0.0001). Mastectomies were performed more on older patients and they received less chemotherapy than younger patients (66.6% versus 43.1%, p < 0.00001 and 30.8% versus 71.6%, p < 0.0001, respectively). With a median follow-up of 5.9 years, 17.7% patients had BCDFS events in the younger group and 19.8% in the older group (p < 0.0001). A decrease in BCSS was also observed in older patients, either when analyzing patients ≥ 70y (p < 0.0001) and when differentiating by the two older groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that older BC patients have worse outcomes what can be a consequence of receiving inadequate adjuvant treatments. Specific trials for these patients are warranted to allow us to treat them with the same scientific rigor than younger patients.

SEOM clinical guidelines to primary prevention of cancer (2018).

Cancer is the leading social and healthcare problem of the twenty-first century. The aim of primary prevention is to decrease the incidence of cancer by avoiding the known causes and risk factors. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that cancer diagnoses could be halved through primary prevention measures. A comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding the main carcinogens and risk factors and primary prevention recommendations have been put forth based on this evidence. The GRADE scale has been used to classify the grade of evidence. We present the scientific evidence and recommendations for primary prevention of the major modifiable risk factors: smoking, alcohol, diet, obesity, physical activity, occupational and environmental factors, ultraviolet radiation, infections, and socioeconomic factors. Primary prevention is a simple, effective means to lower the incidence of cancer. Preventive measures must be circulated in the fight against cancer.

SEOM clinical guidelines on cardiovascular toxicity (2018).

One of the most common side effects of cancer treatment is cardiovascular disease, which substantially impacts long-term survivor's prognosis. Cardiotoxicity can be related with either a direct side effect of antitumor therapies or an accelerated development of cardiovascular diseases in the presence of preexisting risk factors. Even though it is widely recognized as an alarming clinical problem, scientific evidence is scarce in the management of these complications in cancer patients. Consequently, current recommendations are based on expert consensus. This Guideline represents SEOM's ongoing commitment to progressing and improving supportive care for cancer patients.

SEOM guidelines 2018

No disponible

SEOM clinical guidelines on cardiovascular toxicity (2018)

One of the most common side effects of cancer treatment is cardiovascular disease, which substantially impacts long-term survivor's prognosis. Cardiotoxicity can be related with either a direct side effect of antitumor therapies or an accelerated development of cardiovascular diseases in the presence of preexisting risk factors. Even though it is widely recognized as an alarming clinical problem, scientific evidence is scarce in the management of these complications in cancer patients. Consequently, current recommendations are based on expert consensus. This Guideline represents SEOM's ongoing commitment to progressing and improving supportive care for cancer patients

No disponible

SEOM clinical guidelines to primary prevention of cancer (2018)

Cancer is the leading social and healthcare problem of the twenty-first century. The aim of primary prevention is to decrease the incidence of cancer by avoiding the known causes and risk factors. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that cancer diagnoses could be halved through primary prevention measures. A comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding the main carcinogens and risk factors and primary prevention recommendations have been put forth based on this evidence. The GRADE scale has been used to classify the grade of evidence. We present the scientific evidence and recommendations for primary prevention of the major modifiable risk factors: smoking, alcohol, diet, obesity, physical activity, occupational and environmental factors, ultraviolet radiation, infections, and socioeconomic factors. Primary prevention is a simple, effective means to lower the incidence of cancer. Preventive measures must be circulated in the fight against cancer

No disponible

Optimization of oral chemotherapy in outpatient clinics in Spain: results from a survey of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

PURPOSE: To determine the current management of oral and intravenous chemotherapy (OC and IVC) in outpatient clinics of Oncology Departments in Spain to detect opportunities for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology designed a questionnaire specifically for Heads of Oncology Department: 142 were invited and 52 responded. RESULTS: In most centers, the waiting time (69.7%) and time at the outpatient clinic (84.8%) was shorter for patients receiving OC compared to those receiving IVC. The time spent at the outpatient clinic by the patients having OC was approximately 30 min (88.5%). In addition, the time expended by the oncologist with each patient was shorter when they were treated with OC in 21.2% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' waiting times and individual dedication of oncologists might be reduced by administering OC, and general management might be improved. This should be considered when planning therapies if OC is an option.

Prognostic role for the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in early breast cancer: a GEICAM/9906 substudy

Purpose: Elevated markers of host inflammation, a hallmark of cancer, have been associated with worse outcomes in several solid tumors. Here, we explore the prognostic role of the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR), across different tumor subtypes, in patients with early breast cancer. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 1246 patients with lymph node-positive, operable early breast cancer enrolled in the GEICAM/9906 trial, a multicenter randomized phase 3 study evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy. dNLR was calculated as the ratio of neutrophils and the difference between total leukocytes and neutrophils in peripheral blood before chemotherapy. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were explored using a Cox proportional hazard analysis. Results: The analysis comprised 1243 (99.8%) patients with dNLR data, with a median follow-up of 10 years. Data on intrinsic subtypes were available from 818 (66%) patients (luminal A 34%, luminal B 32%, HER2-enriched 21% and basal-like 9%). Median dNLR was 1.35 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.08-1.71]. In the whole population, dNLR was not prognostic after adjustment for clinico-pathological factors. However, dNLR ≥ 1.35 was independently associated with worse DFS in the hormone receptor-negative/HER2+ population (HR 2.86; p = 0.038) and in patients with one to three lymph node metastases (HR 1.32, p = 0.032). There was a non-significant association with worse DFS in non-luminal and in HER2-enriched tumors (HR 1.40, p = 0.085 and HR 1.53, p = 0.067). No significant interaction was observed between the treatment arm and dNLR. Conclusion: Elevated dNLR appears to be an adverse prognostic factor in hormone receptor-negative early breast cancer

No disponible

Prognostic role for the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in early breast cancer: a GEICAM/9906 substudy.

PURPOSE: Elevated markers of host inflammation, a hallmark of cancer, have been associated with worse outcomes in several solid tumors. Here, we explore the prognostic role of the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR), across different tumor subtypes, in patients with early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 1246 patients with lymph node-positive, operable early breast cancer enrolled in the GEICAM/9906 trial, a multicenter randomized phase 3 study evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy. dNLR was calculated as the ratio of neutrophils and the difference between total leukocytes and neutrophils in peripheral blood before chemotherapy. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were explored using a Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: The analysis comprised 1243 (99.8%) patients with dNLR data, with a median follow-up of 10 years. Data on intrinsic subtypes were available from 818 (66%) patients (luminal A 34%, luminal B 32%, HER2-enriched 21% and basal-like 9%). Median dNLR was 1.35 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.08-1.71]. In the whole population, dNLR was not prognostic after adjustment for clinico-pathological factors. However, dNLR ≥ 1.35 was independently associated with worse DFS in the hormone receptor-negative/HER2+ population (HR 2.86; p = 0.038) and in patients with one to three lymph node metastases (HR 1.32, p = 0.032). There was a non-significant association with worse DFS in non-luminal and in HER2-enriched tumors (HR 1.40, p = 0.085 and HR 1.53, p = 0.067). No significant interaction was observed between the treatment arm and dNLR. CONCLUSION: Elevated dNLR appears to be an adverse prognostic factor in hormone receptor-negative early breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2005-003108-12 (retrospectively registered 28/06/2005). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00129922 (retrospectively registered 10/08/2005). Results of this study were presented in part at the 2016 ESMO conference October 7-11, 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark (oral presentation).

Outcomes of single versus double hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. A GEICAM/9906 sub-study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective data suggest better outcomes for patients with double hormonal receptor (oestrogen [ER] and progesterone receptor [PgR])-positive (dHR+) early breast cancer, compared with single hormonal receptor-positive, sHR+, (ER+/PgR- or ER-/PgR+) disease. Here, we evaluate the classification according to intrinsic subtypes and clinical outcomes of sHR+ versus dHR+ in HER2-negative breast cancer patients enrolled in GEICAM/9906 study (NCT00129922). METHODS: Archival tumours were retrieved retrospectively for the analysis of ER, PgR and HER2 status and classified into intrinsic subtypes using the PAM50 gene expression assay. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were explored using a Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: Data on intrinsic subtypes were available in 571 (50%) patients with ER+ and/or PR+, and HER2-negative primary tumours. The incidence of luminal A and luminal B subtypes were 52%/36% in dHR+ tumours (ER+/PgR+), and 15%/58% in ER+/PgR-tumours. ER-/PgR+ tumours were mainly luminal A (52%). Compared with ER+/PgR+ patients, DFS was similar in ER-/PgR+ (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-2.34, p = 0.70) but worse in ER+/PgR- patients (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12-2.28, p < 0.01). Similar results were observed for OS (HR 1.50, p = 0.30 and HR 1.86, p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The ER+/PgR- group is characterised by higher proliferation and worse outcomes. In spite of the ER-/PgR+ subgroup resembles ER+/PgR+ disease in terms of molecular subtypes and outcomes, the small number of patients in this subgroup prevents from drawing any conclusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2005-003108-12 (retrospectively registered 28/06/2005). CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00129922 (retrospectively registered 10/08/2005).

Correction to: SEOM clinical guidelines for endometrial cancer (2017).

In the original version of this article Figure 1 was shown incorrectly. The correct Figure 1 is shown here.