Relevant factors for the optimal duration of extended endocrine therapy in early breast cancer

Purpose: For postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer, the optimal subgroup and duration of extended endocrine therapy is not clear yet. The aim of this study using the IDEAL patient cohort was to identify a subgroup for which longer (5 years) extended therapy is beneficial over shorter (2.5 years) extended endocrine therapy. Methods: In the IDEAL trial, 1824 patients who completed 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (either 5 years of tamoxifen (12%), 5 years of an AI (29%), or a sequential strategy of both (59%)) were randomized between either 2.5 or 5 years of extended letrozole. For each prior therapy subgroup, the value of longer therapy was assessed for both node-negative and node-positive patients using Kaplan Meier and Cox regression survival analyses. Results: In node-positive patients, there was a significant benefit of 5 years (over 2.5 years) of extended therapy (disease-free survival (DFS) HR 0.67, p = 0.03, 95% CI 0.47–0.96). This effect was only observed in patients who were treated initially with a sequential scheme (DFS HR 0.60, p = 0.03, 95% CI 0.38–0.95). In all other subgroups, there was no significant benefit of longer extended therapy. Similar results were found in patients who were randomized for their initial adjuvant therapy in the TEAM trial (DFS HR 0.37, p = 0.07, 95% CI 0.13–1.06), although this additional analysis was underpowered for definite conclusions. Conclusions: This study suggests that node-positive patients could benefit from longer extended endocrine therapy, although this effect appears isol

Longitudinal Serum Protein Analysis of Women with a High Risk of Developing Breast Cancer Reveals Large Interpatient Versus Small Intrapatient Variations:First Results from the TESTBREAST Study

The prospective, multicenter TESTBREAST study was initiated with the aim of identifying a novel panel of blood-based protein biomarkers to enable early breast cancer detection for moderate-to-high-risk women. Serum samples were collected every (half) year up until diagnosis. Protein levels were longitudinally measured to determine intrapatient and interpatient variabilities. To this end, protein cluster patterns were evaluated to form a conceptual basis for further clinical analyses. Using a mass spectrometry-based bottom-up proteomics strategy, the protein abundance of 30 samples was analyzed: five sequential serum samples from six high-risk women; three who developed a breast malignancy (cases) and three who did not (controls). Serum samples were chromatographically fractionated and an in-depth serum proteome was acquired. Cluster analyses were applied to indicate differences between and within protein levels in serum samples of individuals. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA to select proteins with a high level of clustering. Cluster analyses on 30 serum samples revealed unique patterns of protein clustering for each patient, indicating a greater interpatient than intrapatient variability in protein levels of the longitudinally acquired samples. Moreover, the most distinctive proteins in the cluster analysis were identified. Strong clustering patterns within longitudinal intrapatient samples have demonstrated the importance of identifying small changes in protein levels for individuals over time. This underlines the significance of longitudinal serum measurements, that patients can serve as their own controls, and the relevance of the current study set-up for early detection. The TESTBREAST study will continue its pursuit toward establishing a protein panel for early breast cancer detection

Study Protocol PROMETHEUS:Prospective Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Correlation Between Safety Margin and Local Recurrence After Thermal Ablation Using Image Co-registration in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Purpose: The primary objective is to determine the minimal ablation margin required to achieve a local recurrence rate of 18 years with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A hepatocellular carcinoma (or B with a maximum of two lesions < 5 cm each) are eligible. Patients will undergo dual-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography directly before and after ablation. Ablation margins will be quantitatively assessed using co-registration software, blinding assessors (i.e. two experienced radiologists) for outcome. Presence and location of recurrence are evaluated independently on follow-up scans by two other experienced radiologists, blinded for the quantitative margin analysis. A sample size of 189 tumors (~ 145 patients) is required to show with 80% power that the risk of local recurrence is confidently below 10%. A two-sided binomial z-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the local recurrence rate is ≥ 10% for patients with a minimal ablation margin ≥ 2 mm. Logistic regression will be used to find the relationship between minimal ablation margins and local recurrence. Kaplan–Meier estimates are used to assess local and overall recurrence, disease-free and overall survival. Discussion: It is expected that this study will result in a clear understanding of the correlation between ablation margins and local recurrence. Using co-registration software in future patients undergoing ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma may improve intraprocedural evaluation of technical success. Trial registration The Netherlands Trial Register (NL9713), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9713

Risk factors for metachronous isolated peritoneal metastasis after preoperative chemotherapy and potentially curative gastric cancer resection: Results from the CRITICS trial

Gastric cancer (GC) patients at high risk of developing peritoneal metastasis (PM) as a single site of metastasis after curative treatment may be candidates for adjuvant prophylactic strategies. Here we investigated risk factors for metachronous isolated PM in patients who were treated in the CRITICS trial (NCT00407186). Univariable and multivariable analyses on both metachronous isolated PM and ‘other events’, i.e., (concurrent) distant metastasis, locoregional recurrence or death, were performed using a competing risk model and summarized by cumulative incidences. Isolated PM occurred in 64 of the 606 (11%) included patients. Diffuse or mixed histological subtype, ypT4 tumor stage and LNhigh (ypN3 lymph node stage or a lymph node ratio >20%) were independent risk factors for isolated PM in both univariable and multivariable analyses. Likewise, LNhigh was an independent risk factor for ‘other events’. Patients with tumors who were positive for all three independent risk factors had the highest two-year cumulative incidence of 43% for isolated PM development. In conclusion, diffuse or mixed histological subtype, ypT4 and LNhigh were identified as independent risk factors for isolated PM in patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgical resection. The combination of these factors may identify a subgroup that may benefit from PM-preventing treatment strategies

Venous thromboembolism during preoperative chemotherapy in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial

Background: The occurrence of a venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer. Gastric cancer has been associated with one of the highest risks for VTE. Chemotherapy, especially cisplatin has been associated with a high VTE risk. In this study, risk factors for VTE occurrence and their potential impact on subsequent therapeutic interventions were investigated in patients who underwent preoperative chemotherapy, in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial. Patients and methods: Patients with resectable gastric cancer were preoperatively treated with three cycles of 3-weekly epirubicin, cisplatin or oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (ECC/EOC). VTE was defined as any thrombus in the venous system, excluding superficial and/or device related VTEs. Potential risk factors were analyzed in a multivariable regression model with age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), tumor localization, Lauren classification, type of chemotherapy (ECC/EOC), (cardiovascular) comorbidity, and previous VTE as independent risk factors. The impact of VTE on completion rate of preoperative chemotherapy, surgical resection rate, postoperative complications, and start of postoperative therapy were investigated. Results: Of 781 patients, 78 (10%) of 781 patients developed a VTE during preoperative chemotherapy. On multivariable analysis, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and previous VTE were associated with VTE occurrence (reference BMI < 25 kg/m2; OR 2.190; 95% CI 1.152-4.164; P =.017/previous VTE; OR 3.617; 95% CI 1.201-10.890; P =.022). Treatment with cisplatin was, compared to oxaliplatin, not significantly associated with VTE occurrence (OR 1.535; 95% CI 0.761-3.094; P =.231). VTE occurrence did not affect completion of preoperative chemotherapy, surgical resection rate, postoperative complications, or start of postoperative therapy. Conclusion: High BMI and previous VTE were independent risk factors for VTE occurrence during preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer. VTE occurrence in the preoperative setting did not affect receipt of further treatment

Watch and wait after a clinical complete response in rectal cancer patients younger than 50 years

BACKGROUND: Young-onset rectal cancer, in patients less than 50 years, is expected to increase in the coming years. A watch-and-wait strategy is nowadays increasingly practised in patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant treatment. Nevertheless, there may be reluctance to offer organ preservation treatment to young patients owing to a potentially higher oncological risk. This study compared patients aged less than 50 years with those aged 50 years or more to identify possible differences in oncological outcomes of watch and wait. METHODS: The study analysed data from patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant therapy in whom surgery was omitted, registered in the retrospective-prospective, multicentre International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD). RESULTS: In the IWWD, 1552 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 199 (12.8 per cent) were aged less than 50 years. Patients younger than 50 years had a higher T category of disease at diagnosis (P = 0.011). The disease-specific survival rate at 3 years was 98 (95 per cent c.i. 93 to 99) per cent in this group, compared with 97 (95 to 98) per cent in patients aged over 50 years (hazard ratio (HR) 1.67, 95 per cent c.i. 0.76 to 3.64; P = 0.199). The cumulative probability of local regrowth at 3 years was 24 (95 per cent c.i. 18 to 31) per cent in patients less than 50 years and 26 (23 to 29) per cent among those aged 50 years or more (HR 1.09, 0.79 to 1.49; P = 0.603). Both groups had a cumulative probability of distant metastases of 10 per cent at 3 years (HR 1.00, 0.62 to 1.62; P = 0.998). CONCLUSION: There is no additional oncological risk in young patients compared with their older counterparts when following a watch-and-wait strategy after a cCR. In light of a shared decision-making process, watch and wait should be also be discussed with young patients who have a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment

Triplet Chemotherapy with Cisplatin versus Oxaliplatin in the CRITICS Trial: Treatment Compliance, Toxicity, Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with Resectable Gastric Cancer

(1) Background: Perioperative chemotherapy is the current standard treatment for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Based on studies in patients with metastatic gastric cancer, oxaliplatin has replaced cisplatin in the curative setting as well. However, evidence to prefer oxaliplatin over cisplatin in the curative setting is limited. (2) Methods: We compared patientrelated and tumor-related outcomes for cisplatin versus oxaliplatin in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with perioperative chemotherapy in the CRITICS trial. (3) Results: Preoperatively, 632 patients received cisplatin and 149 patients received oxaliplatin. Preoperative severe toxicity was encountered in 422 (67%) patients who received cisplatin versus 89 (60%) patients who received oxaliplatin (p = 0.105). Severe neuropathy was observed in 5 (1%) versus 6 (4%; p = 0.009) patients, respectively. Postoperative severe toxicity occurred in 109 (60%) versus 26 (51%) (p = 0.266) patients; severe neuropathy in 2 (1%) versus 2 (4%; p = 0.209) for patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Diarrhea impacted the quality of life more frequently in patients who received oxaliplatin compared to cisplatin. Complete or near-complete pathological response was achieved in 94 (21%) versus 16 (15%; p = 0.126) patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Overall survival was not significantly different in both groups (p = 0.300). (4) Conclusions: Both cisplatin and oxaliplatin are legitimate options as part of systemic treatment in patients with resectable gastric cancer

Specific adverse events predict survival benefit in patients treated with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors:An international tamoxifen exemestane adjuvant multinational trial analysis

Purpose Specific adverse events (AEs) associated with endocrine therapy and related to depletion or blocking of circulating estrogens may be related to treatment efficacy. We investigated the relationship between survival outcomes and specific AEs including vasomotor symptoms (VMSs), musculoskeletal adverse events (MSAEs), and vulvovaginal symptoms (VVSs) in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer participating in the international Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial. Patients and Methods Primary efficacy end points were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and distant metastases (DM). VMSs, MSAEs, and VVSs arising in the first year of endocrine treatment were considered. Patients who did not start or who discontinued their allocated therapy and/or had an event (recurrence/death) within 1 year after randomization were excluded. Landmark analyses and time-dependent multivariate Cox proportional hazards models assessed survival differences up to 5 years from the start of treatment. Results A total of 9,325 patients were included. Patients with specific AEs (v nonspecific or no AEs) had better DFS and OS (multivariate hazard ratio [HR] for DFS: VMSs, 0.731 [95% CI, 0.618 to 0.866]; MSAEs, 0.826 [95% CI, 0.694 to 0.982]; VVSs, 0.769 [95% CI, 0.585 to 1.01]; multivariate HR for OS: VMSs, 0.583 [95% CI, 0.424 to 0.803]; MSAEs, 0.811 [95% CI, 0.654 to 1.005]; VVSs, 0.570 [95% CI, 0.391 to 0.831]) and fewer DM (VMSs, 0.813 [95% CI, 0.664 to 0.996]; MSAEs, 0.749 [95% CI, 0.601 to 0.934]; VVSs, 0.687 [95% CI, 0.436 to 1.085]) than patients not reporting these symptoms. Increasing numbers of specific AEs were also associated with better survival outcomes. Outcomes were unrelated to treatment allocation. Conclusion Certain specific AEs are associated with superior survival outcomes and may therefore be useful in predicting treatment responses in patients with breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy. </jats:sec

Triplet Chemotherapy with Cisplatin versus Oxaliplatin in the CRITICS Trial: Treatment Compliance, Toxicity, Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with Resectable Gastric Cancer

(1) Background: Perioperative chemotherapy is the current standard treatment for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Based on studies in patients with metastatic gastric cancer, oxaliplatin has replaced cisplatin in the curative setting as well. However, evidence to prefer oxaliplatin over cisplatin in the curative setting is limited. (2) Methods: We compared patientrelated and tumor-related outcomes for cisplatin versus oxaliplatin in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with perioperative chemotherapy in the CRITICS trial. (3) Results: Preoperatively, 632 patients received cisplatin and 149 patients received oxaliplatin. Preoperative severe toxicity was encountered in 422 (67%) patients who received cisplatin versus 89 (60%) patients who received oxaliplatin (p = 0.105). Severe neuropathy was observed in 5 (1%) versus 6 (4%; p = 0.009) patients, respectively. Postoperative severe toxicity occurred in 109 (60%) versus 26 (51%) (p = 0.266) patients; severe neuropathy in 2 (1%) versus 2 (4%; p = 0.209) for patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Diarrhea impacted the quality of life more frequently in patients who received oxaliplatin compared to cisplatin. Complete or near-complete pathological response was achieved in 94 (21%) versus 16 (15%; p = 0.126) patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Overall survival was not significantly different in both groups (p = 0.300). (4) Conclusions: Both cisplatin and oxaliplatin are legitimate options as part of systemic treatment in patients with resectable gastric cancer