Quels dispositifs pour conduire des recherches en partenariat ? L'intervention d'une équipe de recherche au Pays basque intérieur

[eng] What type of appara tus is most appropriate to research in partnership situations? The role of a research team in the basque country Hinterlands. - A group of INRA researchers established a social apparatus ("dispositif") in response to a request from a Basque Country political body to participate in an initiative to strengthen the future of livestock grazing systems in die local hinterlands. The authors characterize the various categories of partners and the nature of the research partnership they set up. They analyze this collaborative process and the role of the researchers in the various committees and working groups that were set up. They emphasize the mutual learning process characteristic of their involvement and leading to action plans implemented by the research partners: sheep cheese qualification, rehabilitation of neglected areas and recognition of the diversity of farming systems and related activities. Attention to methodology and epistemology is crucial to this type of research involving a diversity of partners, as is the appropriateness of the apparatus to the openness of such a process. [fre] Les auteurs présentent et discutent le dispositif de recherche mis en place par un collectif de chercheurs pour répondre à une demande d'intervention d'une collectivité territoriale : comment conforter l'avenir de l'agropastoralisme dans le Pays basque intérieur ? Après avoir défini plusieurs catégories de partenaires, ils décrivent le dispositif de recherche participative constitué. Ils analysent la dynamique de cette opération et le rôle qu'ils ont joué dans les différentes instances, en éclairant les processus d'apprentissage réciproques qui ont marqué cette intervention et qui ont abouti à des propositions d'actions mises en œuvre par les partenaires de la recherche : qualification des fromages de brebis, re-mise en valeur de certaines parties du territoire et reconnaissance de la diversité des systèmes d'activité. Des précautions méthodologiques et épis- témologiques sont indispensables à ce type de recherche conduite avec des partenaires divers et la pertinence du dispositif est essentielle à la conduite d'un tel processus ouvert.

A French prospective pilot study for identifying dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency in breast cancer patients (pts) receiving capecitabine (cap)

International audienceBackground: For fluoropyrimidines, and especially cap, Health Authorities point out that DPD deficiency confers a significant risk of major toxicity (tox). Identification of at-risk pts is thus relevant. This multicentric prospective study of the French GPCO group (Groupe de Pharmacologie Clinique Oncologique, Unicancer) evaluated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of DPD phenotyping and genotyping for predicting severe cap-related tox in metastatic breast cancer pts. Methods: 303 pts were included (15 institutions), 88% received cap as monotherapy, 28% were treated as first line (mean dose at 1st cycle 1957 mg/m2/d). Pre-treatment dihydrouracil (UH2) and uracil (U) plasma concentrations were measured in 286 pts (HPLC assay). DPD genotyping (IVS14+1G>A, 2846A>T, 1679T>G, 464T>A) was done on 281 pts. Severe tox (G3-4 CTCAE v3 criteria) was measured over cycles 1-2. Results: Grade 3-4 tox (diarrhea, vomiting, hematoxicity, hand-foot syndrome) was observed in 19.6% of pts (one toxic death). A marked trend for higher U (median 12.7 vs 10.2 ng/ml, p=0.014) and UH2 (median 110 vs 93 ng/ml, p=0.011) concentrations was observed in pts developing severe tox vs those who didn't. However, ROC curves showed that these differences were too small for use as reliable tox predictors. The distribution of UH2/U ratio was similar between pts with or without tox (median 9.1 vs 9.6, respectively, p=0.80). The patient with toxic death had a UH2/U ratio of 6.5 and U concentration of 17 ng/ml. Among the 7 pts with a DPD mutation (3 pts IVS14+1, 3 pts 2846A>T, one 1679T>G, all heterozygous), 5 developed severe tox (including toxic death, 2846A>T), one did not, and the last one was not documented. Relative risk for developing severe tox was 4.60 in mut pts vs wt pts (95%CI 2.95-7.16, p=0.001); positive and negative predictive values were 83.3% and 81.9%, respectively; specificity was 99.5% and sensitivity was 9.8%. Conclusions: These data point out that breast cancer pts harbouring a DPD variant allele are candidate to develop severe, up to lethal, cap-related tox. In contrast, pre-treatment UH2/U ratio and U measurements are not reliable predictors of cap tox. Clinical trial information: Eudract 2008-004136-20

UCBG 2-08: 5-year efficacy results from the UNICANCER-PACS08 randomised phase III trial of adjuvant treatment with FEC100 and then either docetaxel or ixabepilone in patients with early-stage, poor prognosis breast cancer

PURPOSE: UNICANCER-PACS08 compared adjuvant FEC (5-FU; epirubicin; cyclophosphamide) then docetaxel to FEC then ixabepilone in poor prognosis early breast cancer (BC). We evaluated whether replacing docetaxel with ixabepilone would increase 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or oestrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)-/HER2- BC patients were randomised to receive standard FEC (3 cycles) followed by 3 cycles of either docetaxel (100 mg/m2) or ixabepilone (40 mg/m2). Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery; ER+ patients received endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled between October 2007 and September 2010. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Median follow-up was 66.7 months. Median DFS was not reached; 5-year DFS rate was 76% with docetaxel and 79% with ixabepilone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-1.10; p = 0.175). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; 5-year OS rate was 86% versus 84% (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.66-1.42; p = 0.897). TNBC patients treated with ixabepilone had a 23% lower risk of relapse compared to docetaxel (HR for DFS = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.53-1.11; p = 0.168). DFS was longer with ixabepilone than docetaxel in patients with grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.29-1.05; p = 0.063). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse events (AEs): 75% reported grade III-IV AEs and two (<1%) had grade V AEs (both with neutropenia and infection receiving ixabepilone). CONCLUSION: After adjuvant FEC, ixabepilone was comparable to docetaxel for treating poor prognosis early BC patients. The benefit of ixabepilone in subgroups (patients with TNBC and grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration) requires further evaluation.status: publishe

UCBG 2-08: 5-year efficacy results from the UNICANCER-PACS08 randomised phase III trial of adjuvant treatment with FEC100 and then either docetaxel or ixabepilone in patients with early-stage, poor prognosis breast cancer

PURPOSE: UNICANCER-PACS08 compared adjuvant FEC (5-FU; epirubicin; cyclophosphamide) then docetaxel to FEC then ixabepilone in poor prognosis early breast cancer (BC). We evaluated whether replacing docetaxel with ixabepilone would increase 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or oestrogen receptor (ER)+/progesterone receptor (PR)-/HER2- BC patients were randomised to receive standard FEC (3 cycles) followed by 3 cycles of either docetaxel (100 mg/m2) or ixabepilone (40 mg/m2). Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery; ER+ patients received endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled between October 2007 and September 2010. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Median follow-up was 66.7 months. Median DFS was not reached; 5-year DFS rate was 76% with docetaxel and 79% with ixabepilone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-1.10; p = 0.175). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached; 5-year OS rate was 86% versus 84% (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.66-1.42; p = 0.897). TNBC patients treated with ixabepilone had a 23% lower risk of relapse compared to docetaxel (HR for DFS = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.53-1.11; p = 0.168). DFS was longer with ixabepilone than docetaxel in patients with grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration (HR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.29-1.05; p = 0.063). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse events (AEs): 75% reported grade III-IV AEs and two (<1%) had grade V AEs (both with neutropenia and infection receiving ixabepilone). CONCLUSION: After adjuvant FEC, ixabepilone was comparable to docetaxel for treating poor prognosis early BC patients. The benefit of ixabepilone in subgroups (patients with TNBC and grade II-III lymphocytic infiltration) requires further evaluation