News and updates in the treatment of localized stage triple-negative breast cancer

Compared to other breast cancer subtypes, triple-negative breast cancer presents a worse prognosis and higher mortality. Even in localized stages, the risk of relapse is high, especially in patients with ≥ cT2 and/or ≥ cN1. We know that those patients who achieve a complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant treatment have better disease-free survival. Therefore, many research efforts have been made to try to optimize neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy to increase pathologic complete response rates. The available evidence related to that subject matter is summarized in this article. In the field of adjuvant therapy, the challenge of improving disease-free survival in those patients who do not achieve pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy stands out. The second part of this article will deal with the challenges inherent to this issue

Two-center experience comparing the use of the FLOT4 and CROSS schemes for patients with gastric, esophageal, and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Introduction. Gastric (GAD), gastroesophageal junction (GEJA), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAD) share pathophysiological features. At localized stages, FLOT is used perioperatively for the treatment of GAD and GEJA and CROSS for EAD and some GEJA. Although both therapies have been compared with MAGIC, comparative randomized data on FLOT and CROSS are not yet available. Material andmethods. We retrospectively analyzed and compared 40 patients treated with FLOT and 16 patients treated with CROSS in terms of clinical features and neoadjuvant, surgical, adjuvant, and survival outcomes. Results. At the time of analysis, 65% of patients treated with FLOT4 and 56.3% with CROSS remained in complete remission. Those who progressed after FLOT4 did so mainly at the peritoneal level (25%) and after CROSS at the bone, lymph node, and peritoneal levels (12.5% respectively). Six patients (37.5%) died after CROSS (median OS of 17.5 months; 95% CI 2–41) and 10 (25%) after FLOT4 (median OS 16.5 months; 95% CI 11–22). For the living patients, the median numbers of months from diagnosis to the follow-up cutoff date were 47.5 (95% CI 11–67) and 27 (95% CI 14–44) for CROSS and FLOT4, respectively. There were no significant differences in median OS estimated by Kaplan Meier analysis [FLOT4: 50 ± 4.6 months (95% CI 40.9–59.2); CROSS: 51.2 ± 7 months (95% CI 37.4–65.0; p = 0.79)].  Conclusions. Although we obtained lower pCR rates; TNM downstaging after neoadjuvant therapy, R0 rates, tolerance, PFS, and OS were similar in both groups and comparable with trial results. The adjuvant compliance rate was high with FLOT4. CROSS allows sequencing with nivolumab in PD-L1+ tumors