6 research outputs found
Independent prognostic impact of DNA methylation class and chromosome 1p loss in WHO grade 2 and 3 meningioma undergoing adjuvant high-dose radiotherapy:comprehensive molecular analysis of EORTC 22042–26042
Memory in low-grade glioma patients treated with radiotherapy or temozolomide: a correlative analysis of EORTC study 22033-26033
Background: EORTC study 22033-26033 showed no difference in progression-free survival between high-risk low-grade glioma receiving either radiotherapy (RT) or temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy alone as primary treatment. Considering the potential long-term deleterious impact of RT on memory functioning, this study aims to determine whether TMZ is associated with less impaired memory functioning. Methods: Using the Visual Verbal Learning Test (VVLT), memory functioning was evaluated at baseline and subsequently every 6 months. Minimal compliance for statistical analyses was set at 60%. Conventional indices of memory performance (VVLT Immediate Recall, Total Recall, Learning Capacity, and Delayed Recall) were used as outcome measures. Using a mixed linear model, memory functioning was compared between treatment arms and over time. Results: Neuropsychological assessment was performed in 98 patients (53 RT, 46 TMZ). At 12 months, compliance had dropped to 66%, restricting analyses to baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. At baseline, patients in either treatment arm did not differ in memory functioning, sex, age, or educational level. Over time, patients in both arms showed improvement in Immediate Recall (P = 0.017) and total number of words recalled (Total Recall; P < 0.001, albeit with delayed improvement in RT patients (group by time; P = 0.011). Memory functioning was not associated with RT gross, clinical, or planned target volumes. Conclusion: In patients with high-risk low-grade glioma there is no indication that in the first year after treatment, RT has a deleterious effect on memory function compared with TMZ chemotherapy. Keywords: chemotherapy; low-grade glioma; memory functioning; radiotherapy
Independent prognostic impact of DNA methylation class and chromosome 1p loss in WHO grade 2 and 3 meningioma undergoing adjuvant high-dose radiotherapy: comprehensive molecular analysis of EORTC 22042-26042
Small cell (neuroendocrine) carcinoma of the prostate: etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic implications--a retrospective study of 30 patients from the rare cancer network.
Within the framework of the Rare Cancer Network Study, we examined 30 patients suffering from small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer, either in an early/localized or an advanced/metastatic stage. Patients were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, with or without pelvic radiotherapy. Two patients with early disease achieved complete remission for a duration of 19 and 22 months. Three patients with advanced disease achieved complete remission for 6, 7, and 54 months, respectively. Twenty-five patients succumbed to massive local and/or distant failure. No patient presented with brain metastases as the initial site of relapse. Small cell neuroendocrine prostate carcinoma is a very aggressive disease with a poor prognosis, even in its localized form. Despite initial response, the common cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy failed to improve outcome markedly. Improvement will come from understanding the biology of the disease and integrating new targeted therapies into the treatment of this rare and aggressive tumor
Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.
Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government
A review of the international early recommendations for departments organization and cancer management priorities during the global COVID-19 pandemic: applicability in low- and middle-income countries
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a new virus that has never been identified in humans before. COVID-19 caused at the time of writing of this article, 2.5 million cases of infections in 193 countries with 165,000 deaths, including two-third in Europe. In this context, Oncology Departments of the affected countries had to adapt quickly their health system care and establish new organizations and priorities. Thus, numerous recommendations and therapeutic options have been reported to optimize therapy delivery to patients with chronic disease and cancer. Obviously, while these cancer care recommendations are immediately applicable in Europe, they may not be applicable in certain emerging and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this review, we aimed to summarize these international guidelines in accordance with cancer types, making a synthesis for daily practice to protect patients, staff and tailor anti-cancer therapy delivery taking into account patients/tumour criteria and tools availability. Thus, we will discuss their applicability in the LMICs with different organizations, limited means and different constraints