What to expect from high throughput genomics in metastatic breast cancers?

peer reviewe

Multiple Bayesian network meta-analyses to establish therapeutic algorithms for metastatic triple negative breast cancer

Immunotherapy; PARP inhibitors; PembrolizumabImmunoteràpia; Inhibidors de PARP; PembrolizumabInmunoterapia; Inhibidores de PARP; PembrolizumabMetastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is a poor prognostic disease with limited treatments and uncertain therapeutic algorithms. We performed a systematic review and multiple Bayesian network meta-analyses according to treatment line to establish an optimal therapeutic sequencing strategy for this lethal disease. We included 125 first-line trials (37,812 patients) and 33 s/further-lines trials (11,321 patients). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall response rates (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety, for first and further lines, separately. We also estimated separate treatment rankings for the first and subsequent lines according to each endpoint, based on (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) SUCRA values. No first-line treatment was associated with superior PFS and OS than paclitaxel ± bevacizumab. Platinum-based polychemotherapies were generally superior in terms of ORR, at the cost of higher toxicity.. PARP-inhibitors in germline-BRCA1/2-mutant patients, and immunotherapy + chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive mTNBC, performed similar to paclitaxel ± bevacizumab. In PD-L1-positive mTNBC, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was better than atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in terms of OS according to SUCRA values. In second/further-lines, sacituzumab govitecan outperformed all other treatments on all endpoints, followed by PARP-inhibitors in germline-BRCA1/2-mutant tumors. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-low mTNBC performed similarly and was the best advanced-line treatment in terms of PFS and OS after sacituzumab govitecan, according to SUCRA values. Moreover, comparisons with sacituzumab govitecan, talazoparib and olaparib were not statistically significant. The most effective alternatives or candidates for subsequent lines were represented by nab-paclitaxel (in ORR), capecitabine (in PFS) and eribulin (in PFS and OS)

Anthracyclines Strike Back: Rediscovering Non-Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Current Therapeutic Scenarios of Breast Cancer

Antraciclines; Càncer de mama; Receptor hormonalAntraciclinas; Cáncer de mama; Receptor hormonalAnthracyclines; Breast cancer; Hormone receptorAnthracyclines are among the most active chemotherapies (CT) in breast cancer (BC). However, cardiotoxicity is a risk and peculiar side effect that has been limiting their use in clinical practice, especially after the introduction of taxanes. Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (NPLD) has been developed to optimize the toxicity profile induced by anthracyclines, while maintaining its unquestionable therapeutic index, thanks to its delivering characteristics that increase its diffusion in tumor tissues and reduce it in normal tissues. This feature allows NPLD to be safely administered beyond the standard doxorubicin maximum cumulative dose of 450–480 mg/m2. Following three pivotal first-line phase III trials in HER2-negative metastatic BC (MBC), this drug was finally approved in combination with cyclophosphamide in this specific setting. Given the increasing complexity of the therapeutic scenario of HER2-negative MBC, we have carefully revised the most updated literature on the topic and dissected the potential role of NPLD in the evolving therapeutic algorithms.This study was supported by Mednote, spin-off—University of Trieste, within the Mozart Program

Degradation rate of 5-fluorouracil in metastatic colorectal cancer. A new predictive outcome biomarker?

BACKGROUND: 5-FU based chemotherapy is the most common first line regimen used for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Identification of predictive markers of response to chemotherapy is a challenging approach for drug selection. The present study analyzes the predictive role of 5-FU degradation rate (5-FUDR) and genetic polymorphisms (MTHFR, TSER, DPYD) on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Genetic polymorphisms of MTHFR, TSER and DPYD, and the 5-FUDR of homogenous patients with mCRC were retrospectively studied. Genetic markers and the 5-FUDR were correlated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: 133 patients affected by mCRC, treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy from 2009 to 2014, were evaluated. Patients were classified into three metabolic classes, according to normal distribution of 5-FUDR in more than 1000 patients, as previously published: poor-metabolizer (PM) with 5-FU-DR ≤ 0,85 ng/ml/106 cells/min (8 pts); normal metabolizer with 0,85 < 5-FU-DR < 2,2 ng/ml/106 cells/min (119 pts); ultra-rapid metabolizer (UM) with 5-FU-DR ≥ 2,2 ng/ml/106 cells/min (6 pts). PM and UM groups showed a longer PFS respect to normal metabolizer group (14.5 and 11 months respectively vs 8 months; p = 0.029). A higher G3-4 toxicity rate was observed in PM and UM, respect to normal metabolizer (50% in both PM and UM vs 18%; p = 0.019). No significant associations between genes polymorphisms and outcomes or toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: 5-FUDR seems to be significantly involved in predicting survival of patients who underwent 5-FU based CHT for mCRC. Although our findings require confirmation in large prospective studies, they reinforce the concept that individual genetic variation may allow personalized selection of chemotherapy to optimize clinical outcomes

Quality of life and emotional distress in sarcoma patients diagnosed during COVID-19 pandemic: a supplementary analysis from the SarCorD study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak had a negative psychological impact on cancer patients. In this study, we analyzed emotional distress and quality of life in patients diagnosed with sarcoma during the first year of the pandemic compared to the previous year.MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled patients with soft tissue, bone sarcoma, and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases diagnosed during the pandemic (COVID group) or the year before (control group) at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. Patients who had undergone a psychological assessment with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Distress Thermometer at diagnosis were included in the final analysis. We analyzed whether there is a difference in the various domains of quality of life between the two groups and whether there are changes over time in each group.ResultsWe enrolled 114 patients (72 control group; 42 COVID group), affected by soft tissue (64%), bone sarcoma (29%), and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases (7%). We did not observe significant differences in the health-related quality of life domains in the control and COVID groups, except for the financial domain (p = 0.039), with 9.7% vs. 23.8% of patients with a score &gt; 0 in the control and COVID groups, respectively. We observed emotional distress at diagnosis in 48.6% of patients in the control group vs. 69.0% in the COVID group (p = 0.034). In the control group, we observed an improvement in physical function (p = 0.043) and in QoL (p = 0.022), while in the COVID group, we observed a deterioration in role function (p = 0.044) during follow-up. In the COVID group, 22.2% of patients were concerned about COVID-19, 61.1% by tumor, 91.1% stated that the pandemic worsened their subjective perception of cancer, and 19.4% perceived that their quality of care had worsened.ConclusionWe observed a higher level of distress among patients diagnosed during the pandemic compared to the year before, probably due to the increased concern for both infection and cancer, the worsened perception of health status, and the perception of a poorer quality of health care

Oncological care organisation during COVID-19 outbreak

Funding: This work was supported by Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (grant to CEO) and Fondation Léon Fredericq (grant to GJ and CEO).Background: COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. Methods: A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. Results: Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. Conclusion: Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies

Oncological patients' reactions to COVID-19 pandemic: A single institution prospective study.

peer reviewedBACKGROUND: The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rapid reorganization in all human and hospital activities, with impact on cancer patients. AIM: An analysis of cancer patients fears, and awareness of COVID-19 has been done in this study. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed cancer patients' reactions to the pandemic and their perception of oncological care reorganization, through a 12-item survey, proposed at the peak of pandemic and 3 months later. Overall, 237 patients were included in the study. During the peak of pandemic 34.6% of patients were more worried about COVID-19 than cancer versus 26.4% in the post-acute phase (p = .013). Although 49.8% of patients in the acute phase and 42.3% in the post-acute phase considered their risk of death if infected ≥50%, and more than 70% of patients thought to be at higher risk of complications, the majority of them did not consider the possibility to stop or delay their treatment. Patients were more interested in following news about COVID-19 than cancer and they complied with all preventive measures in more than 90% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although cancer patients worried about COVID-19 and evaluated the risk of complication or death due to COVID-19 as extremely high, they were still asking for the best oncological treatment