Oncogramme, a new promising method for individualized breast tumour response testing for cancer treatment.

International audienceBACKGROUND:Breast cancer is the most widely spread cancer in the world, attracting much research and individualized tumour response testing (ITRT) methods are now used to individualize patient chemotherapeutic administrations. A new ITRT method was developed with optimized processing.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Breast tumour fragments were separated and the cells seeded in a foetal calf serum-free defined medium. After various chemotherapeutic treatments, cytotoxicity was determined by cell death detection with calcein acetoxymethyl and ethidium homodimer labelling.RESULTS:The culture medium allowed breast tumour cell proliferation in culture, while preventing fibroblastic cell survival. Moreover, the cell death analysis gave rise to a chemoresistance profile called an Oncogramme, with statistically significant values.CONCLUSION:The Oncogramme is a new ITRT method which can predict patient cell sensitivities to chemotherapeutics and should be validated by a new phase I clinical trial

Orthotopic and heterotopic autografts of frozen-thawed ovarian cortex in sheep

International audienc

Compliance to genomic test recommendations to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decision‐making in the case of hormone receptor‐positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative breast cancer, in real‐life settings

Abstract Background Genomic tests are a useful tool for adjuvant chemotherapy decision‐making in the case of hormone receptor‐positive (HR+), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative (HER2−) breast cancer with intermediate prognostic factors. Real‐life data on the use of tests can help identify the target population for testing. Methods French multicentric study (8 centers) including patients, all candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy for HR‐positive, HER2‐negative early breast cancer. We describe the percentage of tests performed outside recommendations, according to the year of testing. We calculated a ratio defined as the number of tests required to avoid chemotherapy for one patient, and according to patient and cancer characteristics. We then performed a cost‐saving analysis using medical cost data over a period of 1 year from diagnosis, calculated from a previous study. Finally, we calculated the threshold of the ratio (number of tests required to avoid chemotherapy for one patient) below which the use of genomic tests was cost‐saving. Results A total of 2331 patients underwent a Prosigna test. The ratio (performed test/avoided chemotherapy) was 2.8 [95% CI: 2.7–2.9] in the whole population. In the group following recommendations for test indication, the ratio was 2.3 [95% CI: 2.2–2.4]. In the case of non‐abidance by recommendations, the ratio was 3 [95% CI: 2.8–3.2]. Chemotherapy was avoided in 841 patients (36%) following the results of the Prosigna test. The direct medical costs saved over 1 year of care were 3,878,798€ and 1,718,472€ in the group of patients following test recommendations. We calculated that the ratio (performed test/avoided chemotherapy) needed to be under 6.9 for testing to prove cost‐saving. Conclusion The use of genomic testing proved cost‐saving in this large multicentric real‐life analysis, even in certain cases when the test was performed outside recommendations