ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era : Breast Cancer

The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes. The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine. The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes

The requirements of a specialist breast centre

Abstract This article is an update of the requirements of a specialist breast centre, produced by EUSOMA and endorsed by ECCO as part of Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) programme, and ESMO. To meet aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this article, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.Peer reviewe

International Guidelines for Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Combination vs Sequential Single-Agent Chemotherapy

Compared with treatment options for early-stage breast cancer, few data exist regarding the optimal use of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The choice of using a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapies vs sequential single agents is controversial. At the 6th European Breast Cancer Conference, the European School of Oncology Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force convened an open debate on the relative benefits of combination vs sequential therapy. Based on the available data, the Task Force recommends sequential monotherapy as the preferred choice in advanced disease, in the absence of rapid clinical progression, life-threatening visceral metastases, or the need for rapid symptom and/or disease control. Patient- and disease-related factors should be used to choose between combination and sequential single-agent chemotherapy for MBC. Additional research is needed to determine the impact of therapy on patient-rated quality of life and to identify predictive factors that can be used to guide therapy

Sunitinib in breast cancer: friend or foe.

CommentEditorialSCOPUS: ed.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Breast Cancer

COVID-19; Recomanacions adaptades per l'ESMO; Càncer de mamaCOVID-19; Recomendaciones adaptadas de ESMO; Cáncer de mamaCOVID-19; ESMO adapted recommendations; Breast cancerThe global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes. The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine. The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes

BRCA1 and BRCA2 point mutations and large rearrangements in breast and ovarian cancer families in Northern Poland

Sixty-four Polish families with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer were screened for mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes using a combination of denaturing high performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) and sequencing. Two thirds (43/64; 67%) of the families were found to carry deleterious mutations, of which the most frequent were BRCA1 5382insC (n=22/43; 51%) and Cys61Gly (n=9/43; 20%). Two other recurrent mutations were BRCA1 185delAG (n=3) and 3819del5 (n=4), together accounting for 16% of the 43 mutation-positive cases. We also found three novel mutations (BRCA1 2991del5, BRCA2 6238ins2del21 and 8876delC) which combined with findings from our earlier study of 60 Northern Polish families. Moreover, screening of 43 BRCA1/2 negative families for the presence of large rearrangements by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) resulted in the finding of two additional BRCA1 mutations: a deletion of exons 1A, 1B and 2, and a deletion of exons 17-19, both present in single families. We conclude that the Polish population has a diverse mutation spectrum influenced by strong founder effects. However, families with strong breast/ovarian cancer history who are negative for these common mutations should be offered a complete BRCA gene screening, including MLPA analysis

Olaparib efficacy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: Subgroup analyses from the phase III OlympiAD trial

In the primary analysis of the phase III OlympiAD trial, olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We report subgroup analyses for the final analysis at a median OS follow-up of 18.9 months (olaparib) and 15.5 months (TPC). Patients (N = 302) with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC and <= 2 previous lines of chemotherapy for mBC were randomized 2:1 to open-label olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or TPC. All subgroup analyses were prespecified except site of metastases. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8-8.4; 176/205 events) for olaparib and 3.8 months (95% CI 2.8-4.2; 83/97 events) for TPC (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.66). In subgroup analyses, median PFS hazard ratios (95% CI) favored olaparib: hormone receptor status (triple-negative: 0.47, 0.32-0.69; hormone receptor-positive: 0.52, 0.36-0.75); gBRCAm (BRCA1: 0.49, 0.35-0.71; BRCA2: 0.49, 0.33-0.74); site of metastases (visceral/CNS: 0.53, 0.40-0.71; non-visceral: 0.45, 0.23-0.98); prior chemotherapy for mBC (yes: 0.51, 0.38-0.70; no: 0.49, 0.30-0.82); prior platinum-based chemotherapy for BC (yes: 0.49, 0.30-0.83; no: 0.50, 0.37-0.69); progressive disease at randomization (yes: 0.48, 0.35-0.65; no: 0.61, 0.36-1.07). Investigator-assessed objective response rates were higher across all subgroups with olaparib (35-68%) vs TPC (5-40%). Global health status/health-related quality of life increased in all subgroups with olaparib vs decreased/no change with TPC. These data confirm the consistency of olaparib benefit across patient subgroups in OlympiAD.Y