Pilot study to relate clinical outcome in pancreatic carcinoma and angiogenic plasma factors/circulating mature/progenitor endothelial cells: Preliminary results.

Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) and bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitors (ECP) play important roles in tumor growth and have been proposed as non-invasive markers of angiogenesis. However, CEC and ECP levels have not been investigated in pancreatic carcinoma patients. Using four-color flow cytometry procedures, we evaluated the count of resting (rCEC) and activated (aCEC) endothelial cells and ECP in the peripheral blood of pancreatic carcinoma patients before and after chemotherapy, consisting of gemcitabine (GEM) alone or in combination with oxaliplatin (OX), or with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We also correlated CEC and ECP levels with plasma levels of relevant angiogenic factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-D, angiopoietin (Angio)-1, and chemokine C-X-C motif ligand (CXCL)12, measured by ELISA, and with clinical features of pancreatic cancer. The aCEC, rCEC, ECP, and VEGF-A plasma levels were significantly higher in locally-advanced and metastatic patients than controls. Both ECP and VEGF-A levels correlated positively with disease stage and inversely with patient's overall survival. Measurements after the treatment course showed that VEGF-A plasma concentrations and ECP counts had decreased significantly. In particular, VEGF-A and rCEC were significantly down after treatment with GEM alone or in combination with OX. No significant differences in terms of circulating angiogenic factor or endothelial cell subtype levels were found between responders (patients entering partial remission or with stable disease) and non-responders (patients with progressive disease). The study provides insights into angiogenesis mechanisms in pancreatic carcinoma, for which anti-angiogenic targeting of VEGF-A and ECP could be of interest

Erratum to \u201cSystematic versus on-demand early palliative care: A randomised clinical trial assessing quality of care and treatment aggressiveness near the end of life\u201d [Eur J Cancer (2016) 69 (110\u2013118)] (S095980491632487X)(10.1016/j.ejca.2016.10.004)

The publisher regrets that the collaborators for this paper were not listed as such within the author details of the published paper. The collaborators were published in the Acknowledgements and are as follows: Alberto Farolfi, Silvia Ruscelli, Martina Valgiusti, Sara Pini, Marina Faedi, Department of Medical Oncology, IRST IRCCS, Meldola; Angela Ragazzini, Unit of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, IRST IRCCS, Meldola; Cristina Pittureri and Elena Amaducci, Palliative Care and Hospice Unit, AUSL Romagna, Cesena; Irene Guglieri, Psychooncology Service, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV \u2013 IRCCS, Padua; Francesca Bergamo, Sara Lonardi, Department of Clinical and Experimental Oncology, Medical Oncology 1, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV \u2013 IRCCS, Padua; Camilla Di Nunzio, Medical Oncology Unit, Oncology\u2013Hematology Department, Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza; Monica Bosco, Palliative Care Unit, Oncology\u2013Hematology Department, Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza; Barbara Bocci, Medical Oncology Unit, San Paolo Hospital, Milan; Alfina Bramanti and Chiara Gandini, Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia; Angela Buonadonna, Medical Oncology Unit, Aviano National Cancer Institute, Aviano; Alessandro Comandone, Medical Oncology Unit, Presidio Humanitas Gradenigo, Turin; Sonia Zoccali, Coordinamento Cure Palliative (supported by F.I.L.E., Leniterapia Italian Foundatio), Florence; Maria Simona Pino, Medical Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, S. Maria Annunziata Hospital, Florence; Davide Dalu, Palliative Care Unit, Oncology Department, L. Sacco Hospital, Milan; Pietro Sozzi, Oncology Unit, Ospedale degli Infermi, Ponderano; Alberto Gozza, Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, E.O. Galliera Hospitals, Genoa; Monica Giordano and Carla Longhi, Oncology Unit, Sant'Anna Hospital, Como; Cristina Autelitano, Palliative Care Unit, Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova \u2013 IRCCS, Reggio Emilia; Teresa Gamucci, Oncology Unit, SS Trinit\ue0 Hospital Sora, ASL Frosinone, Frosinone; Cataldo Mastromauro, Oncology Unit, ULSS 12 Veneziana, Venice; Rodolfo Scognamiglio, Hospice Nazareth, Mestre; Daniela Degiovanni, Palliative Care Unit, Casale Monferrato, ASL Alessandria; Federica Negri, Medical Oncology Unit, Istituti Ospitalieri, Cremona; Augusto Caraceni, Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan; and Luigi Montanari, Palliative Care Unit Ravenna, AUSL Romagna, Italy. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Adjuvant anastrozole versus exemestane versus letrozole, upfront or after 2 years of tamoxifen, in endocrine-sensitive breast cancer (FATA-GIM3): a randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: Uncertainty exists about the optimal schedule of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with aromatase inhibitors and, to our knowledge, no trial has directly compared the three aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole. We investigated the schedule and type of aromatase inhibitors to be used as adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Methods: FATA-GIM3 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of six different treatments in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer that had been completely removed by surgery, any pathological tumour size, and axillary nodal status. Key exclusion criteria were hormone replacement therapy, recurrent or metastatic disease, previous treatment with tamoxifen, and another malignancy in the previous 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned in an equal ratio to one of six treatment groups: oral anastrozole (1 mg per day), exemestane (25 mg per day), or letrozole (2·5 mg per day) tablets upfront for 5 years (upfront strategy) or oral tamoxifen (20 mg per day) for 2 years followed by oral administration of one of the three aromatase inhibitors for 3 years (switch strategy). Randomisation was done by a computerised minimisation procedure stratified for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status; previous chemotherapy; and pathological nodal status. Neither the patients nor the physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The minimum cutoff to declare superiority of the upfront strategy over the switch strategy was assumed to be a 2% difference in disease-free survival at 5 years. Primary efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all patients for whom at least one safety case report form had been completed. Follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2006-004018-42, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00541086. Findings: Between March 9, 2007, and July 31, 2012, 3697 patients were enrolled into the study. After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 46–72), 401 disease-free survival events were reported, including 211 (11%) of 1850 patients allocated to the switch strategy and 190 (10%) of 1847 patients allocated to upfront treatment. 5-year disease-free survival was 88·5% (95% CI 86·7–90·0) with the switch strategy and 89·8% (88·2–91·2) with upfront treatment (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·73–1·08; p=0·23). 5-year disease-free survival was 90·0% (95% CI 87·9–91·7) with anastrozole (124 events), 88·0% (85·8–89·9) with exemestane (148 events), and 89·4% (87·3 to 91·1) with letrozole (129 events; p=0·24). No unexpected serious adverse reactions or treatment-related deaths occurred. Musculoskeletal side-effects were the most frequent grade 3–4 events, reported in 130 (7%) of 1761 patients who received the switch strategy and 128 (7%) of 1766 patients who received upfront treatment. Grade 1 musculoskeletal events were more frequent with the upfront schedule than with the switch schedule (924 [52%] of 1766 patients vs 745 [42%] of 1761 patients). All other grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in either group. Interpretation: 5 years of treatment with aromatase inhibitors was not superior to 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 3 years of aromatase inhibitors. None of the three aromatase inhibitors was superior to the others in terms of efficacy. Therefore, patient preference, tolerability, and financial constraints should be considered when deciding the optimal treatment approach in this setting. Funding: Italian Drug Agency