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

SHMT1 1420 and MTHFR 677 variants are associated with rectal but not colon cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Association between rectal or colon cancer risk and serine hydroxymethyltransferase 1 (<it>SHMT1</it>) C1420T or methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (<it>MTHFR</it>) C677T polymorphisms was assessed. The serum total homocysteine (HCY), marker of folate metabolism was also investigated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The <it>SHMT1 </it>and <it>MTHFR </it>genotypes were determined by real-time PCR and PCR-RFLP, respectively in 476 patients with rectal, 479 patients with colon cancer and in 461 and 478, respective controls matched for age and sex. Homocysteine levels were determined by HPLC kit. The association between polymorphisms and cancer risk was evaluated by logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex and body mass index. The population stratification bias was also estimated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no association of genotypes or diplotypes with colon cancer. The rectal cancer risk was significantly lower for <it>SHMT1 </it>TT (OR = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.89) and higher for <it>MTHFR </it>CT genotypes (OR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.06-1.84). A gene-dosage effect was observed for <it>SHMT1 </it>with progressively decreasing risk with increasing number of T allele (p = 0.014). The stratified analysis according to age and sex revealed that the association is mainly present in the younger (< 60 years) or male subgroup. As expected from genotype analysis, the <it>SHMT1 </it>T allele/<it>MTHFR </it>CC diplotype was associated with reduced rectal cancer risk (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.42-0.77 vs all other diplotypes together). The above results are unlikely to suffer from population stratification bias. In controls HCY was influenced by <it>SHMT1 </it>polymorphism, while in patients it was affected only by Dukes' stage. In patients with Dukes' stage C or D HCY can be considered as a tumor marker only in case of <it>SHMT1 </it>1420CC genotypes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A protective effect of <it>SHMT1 </it>1420T allele or <it>SHMT1 </it>1420 T allele/<it>MTHFR </it>677 CC diplotype against rectal but not colon cancer risk was demonstrated. The presence of <it>SHMT1 </it>1420 T allele significantly increases the HCY levels in controls but not in patients. Homocysteine could be considered as a tumor marker in <it>SHMT1 </it>1420 wild-type (CC) CRC patients in Dukes' stage C and D. Further studies need to clarify why <it>SHMT1 </it>and <it>MTHFR </it>polymorphisms are associated only with rectal and not colon cancer risk.</p

Őrszemnyirokcsomó-biopszia terhességi emlőrákban [Sentinel lymph node biopsy in pregnancy-associated breast cancer]

The incidence of pregnancy-associated breast cancer is rising. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is the method of choice in clinically node negative cases as the indicated minimally invasive regional staging procedure. Some reports have linked radioisotope and blue dye required for lymphatic mapping to teratogenic effects, the idea of which has become a generalized statement and, until recently, contraindication for these agents was considered during pregnancy. Today, there are many published reports of successful interventions with low-dose 99mTc-labeled human albumin nanocolloid, based on dosimetric modeling demonstrating a negligible radiation exposure of the fetus. These results contributed to the seemingly safe and successful use of sentinel lymph node biopsy during pregnancy, though generally it can not replace axillary lymphadenectomy in the absence of high-quality evidence. The possibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy should be offered to pregnancy-associated early breast cancer patients with clinically negative axilla, and patients should be involved in the decision making following extensive counselling. This paper presents the successful use of sentinel lymph node biopsy with low-dose tracer during two pregnancies (in the first and third trimesters) and, for the first time in Hungarian language, it offers a comprehensive literature review on this topic. Orv. Hetil., 154(50), 1991-1997

Eight-year follow up result of the OTOASOR trial: The Optimal Treatment Of the Axilla - Surgery Or Radiotherapy after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer: A randomized, single centre, phase III, non-inferiority trial

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute of Oncology, Budapest conducted a single centre randomized clinical study. The OTOASOR (Optimal Treatment Of the Axilla - Surgery Or Radiotherapy) trial compares completion of axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) to regional nodal irradiation (RNI) in patients with sentinel lymph node metastasis (pN1sn) in stage I-II breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with primary invasive breast cancer (cN0 and cT </= 3 cm) were randomized before surgery for cALND (standard treatment) or RNI (investigational treatment). Sentinel lymph nodes (SN) were investigated with serial sectioning at 0.5 mm levels by hematoxylin-eosin staining. Investigational treatment arm patients received 50 Gy RNI instead of cALND. Adjuvant treatment and follow up were performed according to the actual guidelines. Between August 2002 and June 2009, 1054 patients were randomized for cALND and 1052 patients for RNI. SN was evaluated in 2073 patients and was positive in 526 patients (25.4%). 474 cases were evaluable (244 in the cALND and 230 in the RNI arm), and in the cALND group 94 of 244 patients (38.5%) who underwent completion axillary surgery has additional positive nodes. The two arms were well balanced according to the majority of main prognostic factors. Primary endpoint was axillary recurrence and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 97 months (Q1-Q3: 80-120). Axillary recurrence was 2.0% in cALND arm vs. 1.7% in RNI arm (p = 1.00). OS at 8 years was 77.9% vs. 84.8% (p = 0.060), and DFS was 72.1% in cALND arm and 77.4% after RNI (p = 0.51). The results show that RNI is statistically not inferior to cALND treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The long term follow-up results of this prospective-randomized trial suggest that RNI without cALND does not increase the risk of axillary failure in selected patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer (cT </= 3 cm, cN0) and pN1(sn). Axillary radiotherapy should be an alternative treatment for selected patients with sentinel lymph node metastases