The accuracy of Multi-detector row CT for the assessment of tumor invasion of the mesorectal fascia in primary rectal cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of Multi-detector row CT (MDCT) for the prediction of tumor invasion of the mesorectal fascia (MRF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 35 patients with primary rectal cancer underwent preoperative staging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MDCT. The tumor relationship to the MRF, expressed in 3 categories (1--tumor free MRF = tumor distance > or = 1 mm; 2--threatened = distance < 1 mm; 3--invasion = distance 0 mm) was determined on CT by two observers at patient level and at different anatomical locations. A third expert reader evaluated the MRF tumor relationship on MRI, which served as reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-curves) and areas under these curves (AUC) were calculated. The inter-observer agreement of CT was determined by using linear weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: The AUC of CT for MRF invasion was 0.71 for observer 1 and 0.62 for observer 2. The inter-observer agreement was kappa = 0.34. The performance of CT at mid-high rectal levels was statistically significant better compared to low anterior (obs.1: AUC = 0.88 vs. 0.50; obs 2: AUC = 0.84 vs. 0.31; P < or = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Multi-detector row CT has a poor accuracy for predicting MRF invasion in low-anterior located tumors.The accuracy of CT significantly improves for tumors in the mid-high rectum. There is a high inconsistency among readers

International consensus recommendations on key outcome measures for organ preservation after (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

Multimodal treatment strategies for patients with rectal cancer are increasingly including the possibility of organ preservation, through nonoperative management or local excision. Organ preservation strategies can enable patients with a complete response or near-complete clinical responses after radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy to safely avoid the morbidities associated with radical surgery, and thus to maintain anorectal function and quality of life. However, standardization of the key outcome measures of organ preservation strategies is currently lacking; this includes a lack of consensus of the optimal definitions and selection of primary end points according to the trial phase and design; the optimal time points for response assessment; response-based decision-making; follow-up schedules; use of specific anorectal function tests; and quality of life and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, a consensus statement on outcome measures is necessary to ensure consistency and facilitate more accurate comparisons of data from ongoing and future trials. Here, we have convened an international group of experts with extensive experience in the management of patients with rectal cancer, including organ preservation approaches, and used a Delphi process to establish the first international consensus recommendations for key outcome measures of organ preservation, in an attempt to standardize the reporting of data from both trials and routine practice in this emerging area.Patients with early-stage rectal cancer might potentially benefit from treatment with an organ-sparing approach, which preserves quality of life owing to avoidance of the need for permanent colostomy. Trials conducted to investigate this have so far been hampered by considerable inter-trial heterogeneity in several key features. In this Consensus Statement, the authors provide guidance on the optimal end points, response assessment time points, follow-up procedures and quality of life measures in an attempt to improve the comparability of clinical research in this area

Preoperative rectal cancer staging with phased-array MR

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We retrospectively reviewed magnetic resonance (MR) images of 96 patients with diagnosis of rectal cancer to evaluate tumour stage (T stage), involvement of mesorectal fascia (MRF), and nodal metastasis (N stage).</p> <p>Our gold standard was histopathology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All studies were performed with 1.5-T MR system (Symphony; Siemens Medical System, Erlangen, Germany) by using a phased-array coil. Our population was subdivided into two groups: the first one, formed by patients at T1-T2-T3, N0, M0 stage, whose underwent MR before surgery; the second group included patients at Tx N1 M0 and T3-T4 Nx M0 stage, whose underwent preoperative MR before neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and again 4-6 wks after the end of the treatment for the re-staging of disease.</p> <p>Our gold standard was histopathology.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>MR showed 81% overall agreement with histological findings for T and N stage prediction; for T stage, this rate increased up to 95% for pts of group I (48/96), while for group II (48/96) it decreased to 75%.</p> <p>Preoperative MR prediction of histologically involved MRF resulted very accurate (sensitivity 100%; specificity 100%) also after chemoradiation (sensitivity 100%; specificity 67%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Phased-array MRI was able to clearly estimate the entire mesorectal fat and surrounding pelvic structures resulting the ideal technique for local preoperative rectal cancer staging.</p

Correction to. Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting

Objectives: To update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. Methods Fourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Results: Consensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template. Conclusions: These updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI

Follow-up after radiological intervention in oncology: ECIO-ESOI evidence and consensus-based recommendations for clinical practice

Interventional radiology plays an important and increasing role in cancer treatment. Follow-up is important to be able to assess treatment success and detect locoregional and distant recurrence and recommendations for follow-up are needed. At ECIO 2018, a joint ECIO-ESOI session was organized to establish follow-up recommendations for oncologic intervention in liver, renal, and lung cancer. Treatments included thermal ablation, TACE, and TARE. In total five topics were evaluated: ablation in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), TARE in CRLM, TACE and TARE in HCC, ablation in renal cancer, and ablation in lung cancer. Evaluated modalities were FDG-PET-CT, CT, MRI, and (contrast-enhanced) ultrasound. Prior to the session, five experts were selected and performed a systematic review and presented statements, which were voted on in a telephone conference prior to the meeting by all panelists. These statements were presented and discussed at the ECIO-ESOI session at ECIO 2018. This paper presents the recommendations that followed from these initiatives. Based on expert opinions and the available evidence, follow-up schedules were proposed for liver cancer, renal cancer, and lung cancer. FDG-PET-CT, CT, and MRI are the recommended modalities, but one should beware of false-positive signs of residual tumor or recurrence due to inflammation early after the intervention. There is a need for prospective preferably multicenter studies to validate new techniques and new response criteria. This paper presents recommendations that can be used in clinical practice to perform the follow-up of patients with liver, lung, and renal cancer who were treated with interventional locoregional therapies

Preoperative short-term radiation therapy (25 Gy, 2.5 Gy twice daily) for primary resectable rectal cancer (phase II)

To evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and long-term bowel function of preoperative hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy in primary resectable rectal cancer. A total of 184 consecutive patients (median age 65 years, male : female=2 : 1) with clinical T3Nx rectal adenocarcinoma received preoperative pelvic radiation therapy with single fractions of 2.5 Gy twice daily (interval 6 h between fractions) to a total dose of 25 Gy within 1 week. Surgery was conducted the following week. Postoperative histology revealed UICC stage I in 33%, stage II in 26%, stage III in 34%, and stage IV in 7% of the patients. Median follow-up was 43 months (53 months for surviving patients). The actuarial 4-year-local-recurrence rate was 2.1%, overall recurrence 23%. Disease-specific and disease-free survivals at 4 years (excluding stage IV) were 82 and 69%, respectively. Overall survival for 4 years was 68%. Postoperative mortality was 0.5% (one patient), early anastomotic leakage occurred in 11.4%, and anastomotic stenosis requiring treatment in 6%, of 132 patients with primary anastomosis. Seven of 184 patients (3.8%) died of abdominal complications, all within the first year. Bowel function was satisfactory after more than 5 years. Local control in primarily resectable rectal cancer after 10 × 2.5 Gy is excellent, warranting further evaluation of this treatment

Short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy, TME, and optional adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (RAPIDO):a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Systemic relapses remain a major problem in locally advanced rectal cancer. Using short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy and delayed surgery, the Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 54 centres in the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, had a biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, which was classified as high risk on pelvic MRI (with at least one of the following criteria: clinical tumour [cT] stage cT4a or cT4b, extramural vascular invasion, clinical nodal [cN] stage cN2, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral lymph nodes), were mentally and physically fit for chemotherapy, and could be assessed for staging within 5 weeks before randomisation. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a management system with a randomly varying block design (each block size randomly chosen to contain two to four allocations), stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, cT stage, and cN stage, to either the experimental or standard of care group. All investigators remained masked for the primary endpoint until a prespecified number of events was reached. Patients allocated to the experimental treatment group received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy over a maximum of 8 days) followed by six cycles of CAPOX chemotherapy (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 15-21) or nine cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin [folinic acid] 200 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 2, followed by bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously for 22 h on days 1 and 2, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 3-14) followed by total mesorectal excision. Choice of CAPOX or FOLFOX4 was per physician discretion or hospital policy. Patients allocated to the standard of care group received 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy up to 50·4 Gy or 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy up to 50·0 Gy (per physician discretion or hospital policy), with concomitant twice-daily oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 followed by total mesorectal excision and, if stipulated by hospital policy, adjuvant chemotherapy with eight cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of FOLFOX4. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-related treatment failure, defined as the first occurrence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, new primary colorectal tumour, or treatment-related death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the EudraCT, 2010-023957-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01558921, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2011, and June 2, 2016, 920 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment, of whom 912 were eligible (462 in the experimental group; 450 in the standard of care group). Median follow-up was 4·6 years (IQR 3·5-5·5). At 3 years after randomisation, the cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 23·7% (95% CI 19·8-27·6) in the experimental group versus 30·4% (26·1-34·6) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·95; p=0·019). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event during preoperative therapy in both groups was diarrhoea (81 [18%] of 460 patients in the experimental group and 41 [9%] of 441 in the standard of care group) and neurological toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy in the standard of care group (16 [9%] of 187 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 177 (38%) of 460 participants in the experimental group and, in the standard of care group, in 87 (34%) of 254 patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and in 64 (34%) of 187 with adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four participants in the experimental group (one cardiac arrest, one pulmonary embolism, two infectious complications) and in four participants in the standard of care group (one pulmonary embolism, one neutropenic sepsis, one aspiration, one suicide due to severe depression). INTERPRETATION: The observed decreased probability of disease-related treatment failure in the experimental group is probably indicative of the increased efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting. Therefore, the experimental treatment can be considered as a new standard of care in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation, Swedish Cancer Society, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Spanish Clinical Research Network

MRI directed multidisciplinary team preoperative treatment strategy: the way to eliminate positive circumferential margins?

Histopathological audit of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) can be used as a surrogate measure of the success of rectal cancer treatment. We audited CRM involvement in rectal cancer patients and the impact of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) on implementing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based preoperative treatment strategy. Data were collected on all newly diagnosed rectal cancer patients treated in our network between January 1999 and December 2002. Data were analysed for MRI prediction and histopathological assessment of CRM together with the MDT meeting treatment decisions. The CRM+ve rate of those discussed at MDT vs those not discussed were compared. We re-audited the CRM+ve rates 1 year after introducing a policy of mandatory preoperative MRI-based MDT discussion. Of the 298 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, 39 (13%) were deemed palliative, 178 underwent surgery alone and 81 underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Of these, 62 out of 178 patients underwent surgery alone without MRI-based MDT discussion resulting in positive CRM in 16 cases (26%) as compared to 1 out of 116 (1%) in those patients with MDT discussion of MRI. Overall CRM+ve rate in all nonpalliative patients with or without MDT discussion was 12.5% (32 out of 256), significantly lower than the <20% rate (P<0.001) quoted in national guidelines. Re-audit in 98 consecutive patients following a change of policy produced a lower CRM+ve rate of 3% (1 out of 37) for all surgery alone patients and an overall CRM+ve rate of 7% (5 out of 70). In conclusion, MDT discussion of MRI and implementation of a preoperative treatment strategy results in significantly reduced positive CRM in rectal cancer patients

Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Selection of Complete Responders After Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study

PURPOSE: In 10-24% of patients with rectal cancer who are treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, no residual tumor is found after surgery (ypT0). When accurately selected, these complete responders might be considered for less invasive treatments instead of standard surgery. So far, no imaging method has proven reliable. This study was designed to assess the accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in addition to standard rectal MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from three university hospitals underwent chemoradiation followed by a restaging MRI (1.5T), consisting of standard T2W-MRI and DWI (b0-1000). Three independent readers first scored the standard MRI only for the likelihood of a complete response using a 5-point confidence score, after which the DWI images were added and the scoring was repeated. Histology (ypT0 vs. ypT1-4) was the standard reference. Diagnostic performance for selection of complete responders and interobserver agreement were compared for the two readings. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 120 patients had a complete response (ypT0). Areas under the ROC-curve for the three readers improved from 0.76, 0.68, and 0.58, using only standard MRI, to 0.8, 0.8, and 0.78 after addition of DWI (P = 0.39, 0.02, and 0.002). Sensitivity for selection of complete responders ranged from 0-40% on standard MRI versus 52-64% after addition of DWI. Specificity was equally high (89-98%) for both reading sessions. Interobserver agreement improved from kappa 0.2-0.32 on standard MRI to 0.51-0.55 after addition of DWI. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DWI to standard rectal MRI improves the selection of complete responders after chemoradiation

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures – namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research – were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization. JT reports personal financial interest in form of scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Avvinity, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, DaiichiSankyo, F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics and TheraMyc. And also educational collaboration with Imedex, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). JT also declares institutional financial interest in form of financial support for clinical trials or contracted research for Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Debiopharm International SA, F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Janssen‐Cilag SA, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck Health KGAA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis Farmacéutica SA, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi Aventis Recherche & Développement, Servier, Taiho Pharma USA Inc, Spanish Association Against Cancer Scientific Foundation and Cancer Research UK. MB has received funding for his research projects and for educational grants to the University of Dresden by Bayer AG (2016‐2018), Merck KGaA (2014‐open) and Medipan GmbH (2014‐2018). He is on the supervisory board of HI‐STEM GmbH (Heidelberg) for the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ, Heidelberg) and also member of the supervisory body of the Charité University Hospital, Berlin. As former chair of OncoRay (Dresden) and present CEO and Scientific Chair of the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ, Heidelberg), he has been or is responsible for collaborations with a multitude of companies and institutions, worldwide. In this capacity, he has discussed potential projects and signed contracts for research funding and/or collaborations with industry and academia for his institute(s) and staff, including but not limited to pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bosch, Roche and other companies such as Siemens, IBA, Varian, Elekta, Bruker, etc. In this role, he was/is also responsible for the commercial technology transfer activities of his institute(s), including the creation of start‐ups and licensing. This includes the DKFZ‐PSMA617 related patent portfolio [WO2015055318 (A1), ANTIGEN (PSMA)] and similar IP portfolios. MB confirms that, to the best of his knowledge, none of the above funding sources were involved in the preparation of this paper. BB has received research funding from 4D Pharma, Abbvie, Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cergentis, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi‐Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Inivata, Janssen, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Roche‐Genentech, Sanofi, Takeda, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. FC declares consultancy role for: Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi‐Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck‐Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre‐Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva. SF is a consulting or advisory board member at Bayer, Illumina, Roche; has received honoraria from Amgen, Eli Lilly, PharmaMar, Roche; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche; has received sponsorship of travel or accommodation expenses by Amgen, Eli Lilly, Illumina, PharmaMar, Roche. SG owns AstraZeneca stock and is a full‐time employee of AstraZeneca. PN has had an advisory role at Bayer, MSD Oncology, has received honoraria from Bayer, Novartis and MSD Oncology, and has had travel expenses paid by Novartis. JO has been an advisory board member at Roche, Novartis, Bayer, Merck, Eisai, Astrazeneca, Pierre Fabre Medicament and Bristol‐Myers Squibb. He has also received research funding by IPO Porto, Astrazeneca, Fundação para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) and Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro (LPCC). AR is an employee of European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, Brussels, MSD International Business GmbH, Kriens, Switzerland[CvG1], and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA, who may own stock and/or hold stock options in the Company.RS serves as principal investigator of the ASCO TAPUR study. ASCO receives research grants from the following companies in support of the study: Astra‐Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer‐Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics. Dr. Schilsky serves as a member of the managing board of Clariifi and as a consultant to Bryologyx, Cellworks Group, EQRx, and Scandion Oncology. The Netherlands Cancer Institute receives research support via EV from Roche, Astrazeneca, Eisai, Novartis, GSK, Clovis, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Janssen and Seagen. LZ is founder of everImmune, member of the board of directors of Transgene, member of the scientific advisory board of Transgene, EpiVax, Lytix Biopharma. LZ has also had research contracts with: Merus, Roche, Tusk, Kaleido, GSK, BMS, Incyte, Pileje, Innovate Pharma, and Transgene and has received honoraria by Transgene. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Regarding the design of innovative and adaptive clinical trials, two examples were illustrated: the first European multimodular, two‐part academic CCE‐endorsed Basket of Baskets (BoB) study, and the recently launched CCE Building Data Rich Clinical Trials (DART) Consortium, which is supported by EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Box 13 ). We are grateful for the support by Carolina Espina, International Agency for Research on Cancer; Christina von Gertten, European Academy of Cancer Sciences; Ana Augusta Silva, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto; and Teresa Tavares, Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education, Portugal for their excellent cooperation. Carmen Jeronimo, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, collaborated in the presentation of Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center by Raquel Seruca