Time at surgery during menstrual cycle and menopause affects pS2 but not cathepsin D levels in breast cancer

Many studies have addressed the clinical value of pS2 as a marker of hormone responsiveness and of cathepsin D (Cath D) as a prognostic factor in breast cancer. Because pS2 and Cath D are both oestrogen induced in human breast cancer cell lines, we studied the influence of the menstrual cycle phase and menopausal status at the time of surgery on the levels of these proteins in breast cancer. A population of 1750 patients with breast cancer, including 339 women in menstrual cycle, was analysed. Tumoral Cath D and pS2 were measured by radioimmunoassay. Serum oestradiol (E2), progesterone (Pg), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels at the day of surgery were used to define the hormonal phase in premenopausal women. There was a trend towards a higher mean pS2 level in the follicular phase compared with the luteal phase (17 ng mg−1and 11 ng mg−1respectively, P= 0.09). Mean pS2 was lower in menopausal patients than in women with cycle (8 ng mg−1and 14 ng mg−1respectively, P= 0.0001). No differences in mean Cath D level were observed between the different phases of the menstrual cycle, or between pre- and post-menopausal women. In the overall population, pS2 was slightly positively associated with E2 and Pg levels and negatively associated with FSH and LH, probably reflecting the link between pS2 and menopausal status. In premenopausal women, no association was found between pS2 and E2, Pg, FSH or LH levels. There were no correlations between Cath D level and circulating hormone levels in the overall population. However, in the subgroup of premenopausal women with ER-positive (ER+) tumours, E2 was slightly associated with both pS2 and Cath D, consistent with oestrogen induction of these proteins in ER+ breast cancer cell lines. There are changes in pS2 level in breast cancer throughout the menstrual cycle and menopause. This suggests that the choice of the pS2 cut-off level should take the hormonal status at the time of surgery into account. In contrast, the level of Cath D is unrelated to the menstrual cycle and menopausal status. 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

The International Collaboration for Research methods Development in Oncology (CReDO) workshops: shaping the future of global oncology research

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have a disproportionately high burden of cancer and cancer mortality. The unique barriers to optimum cancer care in these regions necessitate context-specific research. The conduct of research in LMICs has several challenges, not least of which is a paucity of formal training in research methods. Building capacity by training early career researchers is essential to improve research output and cancer outcomes in LMICs. The International Collaboration for Research methods Development in Oncology (CReDO) workshop is an initiative by the Tata Memorial Centre and the National Cancer Grid of India to address gaps in research training and increase capacity in oncology research. Since 2015, there have been five CReDO workshops, which have trained more than 250 oncologists from India and other countries in clinical research methods and protocol development. Participants from all oncology and allied fields were represented at these workshops. Protocols developed included clinical trials, comparative effectiveness studies, health services research, and observational studies, and many of these protocols were particularly relevant to cancer management in LMICs. A follow-up of these participants in 2020 elicited an 88% response rate and showed that 42% of participants had made progress with their CReDO protocols, and 73% had initiated other research protocols and published papers. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges to research in LMICs, as well as the evolution, structure, and impact of CReDO and other similar workshops on global oncology research

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Review of Meta-Analyses

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery with surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer have shown no difference in survival between the two treatments. Meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer, however, are discordant. Methods: For the present study, published meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer were identified from the PubMed database and critically appraised in order to make a judgment on the applicability of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in clinical practice and decision making. Results: Two of the six meta-analyses examined did not show a significant survival benefit in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Differences in the studies included and statistical methods applied might account for this. Moreover, there was heterogeneity between the RCTs included in the meta-analyses with regard to the patients included, tumor histology, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimes. Also, surgical technique was not uniform. No data on individual patients were available for most meta-analyses. The RCTs included in the meta-analyses were of inadequate sample size. All were started in the nineties, and hence methods for diagnosis, staging, treatment delivery, and outcome measurement reflect clinical practice during that decade. Conclusions: The current data on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer strongly indicate the need for designing future high-quality trials that will contribute to a better understanding of the role of neoadjuvant treatment for resectable cancer of the esophagus and help to identify patient subgroups that would benefit most

The Lancet Breast Cancer Commission: tackling a global health, gender, and equity challenge

Breast cancer is an increasing global health, gender, socioeconomic, and equity challenge. In 2020, 2·3 million women were diagnosed with breast cancer and there were 685 000 deaths worldwide.1 Not only is breast cancer the highest incident cancer globally, but it is also the most prevalent, causing more disability-adjusted life-years lost than any other malignancy. Tackling breast cancer is a formidable task for health-care systems, policy makers, and other stakeholders. The numbers of people with metastatic breast cancer who go uncounted are concerning. Cancer registries record patients initially presenting with de-novo metastatic breast cancer, but data on those who develop metastases after a diagnosis of early breast cancer are scarce. In a world focused on breast cancer cure, these uncounted people living with metastatic disease face abandonment and stigma

Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced. MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate. - Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). - Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials). - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery. - Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice