A randomized phase 2 study of sapanisertib in combination with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in women with advanced, recurrent, or persistent endometrial cancer

Endometrial cancer; Metastatic; RecurrentCàncer d'endometri; Metastàtic; RecurrentCáncer endometrial; Metastásico; RecurrenteObjective This phase 2 study investigated sapanisertib (selective dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2) alone, or in combination with paclitaxel or TAK-117 (a selective small molecule inhibitor of PI3K), versus paclitaxel alone in advanced, recurrent, or persistent endometrial cancer. Methods Patients with histologic diagnosis of endometrial cancer (1–2 prior regimens) were randomized to 28-day cycles on four treatment arms: 1) weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15); 2) weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + oral sapanisertib 4 mg on days 2–4, 9–11, 16–18, and 23–25; 3) weekly sapanisertib 30 mg, or 4) sapanisertib 4 mg + TAK-117 200 mg on days 1–3, 8–10, 15–17, and 22–24. Results Of 241 patients randomized, 234 received treatment (paclitaxel, n = 87 [3 ongoing]; paclitaxel+sapanisertib, n = 86 [3 ongoing]; sapanisertib, n = 41; sapanisertib+TAK-117, n = 20). The sapanisertib and sapanisertib+TAK-117 arms were closed to enrollment after futility analyses. After a median follow-up of 14.4 (paclitaxel) versus 17.2 (paclitaxel+sapanisertib) months, median progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) was 3.7 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–1.15; p = 0.139); in patients with endometrioid histology (n = 116), median PFS was 3.3 versus 5.7 months (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.43–1.03). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 54.0% with paclitaxel versus 89.5% paclitaxel+sapanisertib. Conclusions Our findings support inclusion of chemotherapy combinations with investigational agents for advanced or metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was not met and toxicity was manageable. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02725268Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Lexington, MA, USA. This work was supported by funding from Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. The study was designed by the authors in conjunction with the sponsors. Data were gathered and analyzed by the investigator and the sponsor; all the authors had access to the data. The authors received medical writing support for drafting the manuscript, which was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Manuscript drafts were reviewed by all authors and the sponsor and all the authors made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Subspecialty training in Europe:a report by the European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists

Backgroun

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity and quality-adjusted progression-free survival with niraparib maintenance in first-line ovarian cancer in the PRIMA trial

Background: The PRIMA phase 3 trial showed niraparib significantly prolongs median progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OC) responsive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, including those who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRd). This analysis of PRIMA examined the quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) of patients on maintenance niraparib versus placebo. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive once-daily maintenance niraparib (n = 487) or placebo (n = 246). QA-PFS was defined as the PFS of patients adjusted for their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) prior to disease progression, measured using European Quality of Life Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire index scores from the PRIMA trial. Q-TWiST was calculated by combining data on PFS, duration of symptomatic grade ⩾2 adverse events (fatigue or asthenia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal bloating) prior to disease progression, and EQ-5D index scores. Analyses used data collected up to the last date of PFS assessment (May 17, 2019). Results: The restricted mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with niraparib versus placebo in the HRd (n = 373) and overall intention-to-treat (ITT; n = 733) populations (mean gains of 6.5 [95% confidence interval; CI, 3.9–8.9] and 4.1 [95% CI, 2.2–5.8] months, respectively). There were also significant improvements in restricted mean Q-TWiST for niraparib versus placebo (mean gains of 5.9 [95% CI, 3.5–8.6] and 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7–5.6] months, respectively) in the HRd and ITT populations. Conclusions: In patients with advanced OC, first-line niraparib maintenance was associated with significant gains in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST versus placebo. These findings demonstrate that niraparib maintenance treatment is associated with a PFS improvement and that treatment benefit is maintained even when HRQoL and/or toxicity data are combined with PFS in a single measure. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02655016; trial registration date: January 13, 2016 Plain language summary: Background: In a large clinical trial called PRIMA, patients with advanced cancer of the ovary (ovarian cancer) were given either niraparib (a type of cancer medicine) or placebo (a pill containing no medicine/active substances) after having chemotherapy (another type of cancer medicine). Taking niraparib after chemotherapy is called maintenance therapy and aims to give patients more time before their cancer returns or gets worse than if they were not given any further treatment. In the PRIMA trial, patients who took niraparib did have more time before their cancer progressed than if they took placebo. However, it is important to consider patients’ quality of life, which can be made worse by cancer symptoms and/or side effects of treatment. Here, we assessed the overall benefit of niraparib for patients in PRIMA. Methods: Both the length of time before disease progression (or survival time) and quality of life were considered using two different analyses: ● The first analysis was called quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and looked at how long patients survived with good quality of life. ● The second analysis was called quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity (Q-TWiST) and looked at how long patients survived without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects. Results: The PRIMA trial included 733 patients; 487 took niraparib and 246 took placebo. Around half of the patients in both groups had a type of ovarian cancer that responds particularly well to drugs like niraparib – they are known as homologous recombination deficiency (HRd) patients. ● When information on quality of life (collected from patient questionnaires) and survival was combined in the QA-PFS analysis, HRd patients who took niraparib had approximately 6.5 months longer with a good quality of life before disease progression than those who took placebo. In the overall group of patients (including HRd patients and non-HRd patients), those who took niraparib had approximately 4 months longer than with placebo. ● Using the second analysis (Q-TWiST) to combine information on survival with cancer symptoms and treatment side effects, the HRd patients taking niraparib had approximately 6 months longer without cancer symptoms or treatment side effects (such as nausea or vomiting) than patients taking placebo. In the overall group of patients, those taking niraparib had approximately 3.5 months longer without these cancer symptoms/side effects than patients receiving placebo. Conclusions: These results show that the survival benefits of niraparib treatment remain when accounting for patients’ quality of life. These benefits were seen not only in HRd patients who are known to respond better to niraparib, but in the overall group of patients who took niraparib.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Mendelian randomisation study of smoking exposure in relation to breast cancer risk

Background Despite a modest association between tobacco smoking and breast cancer risk reported by recent epidemiological studies, it is still equivocal whether smoking is causally related to breast cancer risk. Methods We applied Mendelian randomisation (MR) to evaluate a potential causal effect of cigarette smoking on breast cancer risk. Both individual-level data as well as summary statistics for 164 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in genome-wide association studies of lifetime smoking index (LSI) or cigarette per day (CPD) were used to obtain MR effect estimates. Data from 108,420 invasive breast cancer cases and 87,681 controls were used for the LSI analysis and for the CPD analysis conducted among ever-smokers from 26,147 cancer cases and 26,072 controls. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address pleiotropy. Results Genetically predicted LSI was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.18 per SD, 95% CI: 1.07-1.30, P = 0.11 x 10(-2)), but there was no evidence of association for genetically predicted CPD (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78-1.19, P = 0.85). The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results and showed no strong evidence of pleiotropic effect. Conclusion Our MR study provides supportive evidence for a potential causal association with breast cancer risk for lifetime smoking exposure but not cigarettes per day among smokers.Peer reviewe

Proceedings of the International Cancer Imaging Society (ICIS) 16th Annual Teaching Course

Table of contents O1 Tumour heterogeneity: what does it mean? Dow-Mu Koh O2 Skeletal sequelae in adult survivors of childhood cancer Sue Creviston Kaste O3 Locoregional effects of breast cancer treatment Sarah J Vinnicombe O4 Imaging of cancer therapy-induced CNS toxicity Giovanni Morana, Andrea Rossi O5 Screening for lung cancer Christian J. Herold O6Risk stratification of lung nodules Theresa C. McLoud O7 PET imaging of pulmonary nodules Kirk A Frey O8 Transarterial tumour therapy Bernhard Gebauer O9 Interventional radiology in paediatric oncology Derek Roebuck O10 Image guided prostate interventions Jurgen J. Fütterer O11 Imaging cancer predisposition syndromes Alexander J. Towbin O12Chest and chest wall masses Thierry AG Huisman O13 Abdominal masses: good or bad? Anne MJB Smets O14 Hepatobiliary MR contrast: enhanced liver MRI for HCC diagnosis and management Giovanni Morana O15 Role of US elastography and multimodality fusion for managing patients with chronic liver disease and HCC Jeong Min Lee O16 Opportunities and challenges in imaging metastatic disease Hersh Chandarana O17 Diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and follow-up of lymphoma Marius E. Mayerhoefer, Markus Raderer, Alexander Haug O18 Managing high-risk and advanced prostate cancer Matthias Eiber O19 Immunotherapy: imaging challenges Bernhard Gebauer O20 RECIST and RECIST 1.1 Andrea Rockall O21 Challenges of RECIST in oncology imaging basics for the trainee and novice Aslam Sohaib O22 Lymphoma: PET for interim and end of treatment response assessment: a users’ guide to the Deauville Score Victoria S Warbey O23 Available resources Hebert Alberto Vargas O24 ICIS e-portal and the online learning community Dow-Mu Koh O25 Benign lesions that mimic pancreatic cancer Jay P Heiken O26 Staging and reporting pancreatic malignancies Isaac R Francis, Mahmoud, M Al-Hawary, Ravi K Kaza O27 Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm Giovanni Morana O28 Cystic pancreatic tumours Mirko D’Onofrio O29 Diffusion-weighted imaging of head and neck tumours Harriet C. Thoeny O30 Radiation injury in the head and neck Ann D King O31 PET/MR of paediatric brain tumours Giovanni Morana, Arnoldo Piccardo, Maria Luisa Garrè, Andrea Rossi O32 Structured reporting and beyond Hebert Alberto Vargas O33 Massachusetts General Hospital experience with structured reporting Theresa C. McLoud O34 The oncologist’s perspective: what the oncologist needs to know Nick Reed O35 Towards the cure of all children with cancer: global initiatives in pediatric oncology Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo O36 Multiparametric imaging of renal cancers Hersh Chandarana O37 Linking imaging features of renal disease and their impact on management strategies Hebert Alberto Vargas O38 Adrenals, retroperitoneum and peritoneum Isaac R Francis, Ashish P Wasnik O39 Lung and pleura Stefan Diederich O40 Advances in MRI Jurgen J. Fütterer O41 Advances in molecular imaging Wim J.G. Oyen O42 Incorporating advanced imaging, impact on treatment selection and patient outcome Cheng Lee Chaw, Nicholas van As S1 Combining ADC-histogram features improves performance of MR diffusion-weighted imaging for Lymph node characterisation in cervical cancer Igor Vieira, Frederik De Keyzer, Elleke Dresen, Sileny Han, Ignace Vergote, Philippe Moerman, Frederic Amant, Michel Koole, Vincent Vandecaveye S2 Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for surgical planning in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases R Dresen, S De Vuysere, F De Keyzer, E Van Cutsem, A D’Hoore, A Wolthuis, V Vandecaveye S3 Role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting extra capsular extension of prostate cancer. P. Pricolo ([email protected]), S. Alessi, P. Summers, E. Tagliabue, G. Petralia S4 Generating evidence for clinical benefit of PET/CT – are management studies sufficient as surrogate for patient outcome? C. Pfannenberg, B. Gückel, SC Schüle, AC Müller, S. Kaufmann, N. Schwenzer, M. Reimold,C. la Fougere, K. Nikolaou, P. Martus S5 Heterogeneity of treatment response in skeletal metastases from breast cancer with 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET GJ Cook, GK Azad, BP Taylor, M Siddique, J John, J Mansi, M Harries, V Goh S6 Accuracy of suspicious breast imaging—can we tell the patient? S Seth, R Burgul, A Seth S7 Measurement method of tumour volume changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy affects ability to predict pathological response S Waugh, N Muhammad Gowdh, C Purdie, A Evans, E Crowe, A Thompson, S Vinnicombe S8 Diagnostic yield of CT IVU in haematuria screening F. Arfeen, T. Campion, E. Goldstraw S9 Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: preliminary results D’Onofrio M, Ciaravino V, Crosara S, De Robertis R, Pozzi Mucelli R S10 Iodine maps from dual energy CT improve detection of metastases in staging examinations of melanoma patients M. Uhrig, D. Simons, H. Schlemmer S11Can contrast enhanced CT predict pelvic nodal status in malignant melanoma of the lower limb? Kate Downey S12 Current practice in the investigation for suspected Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndromes (PNS) and positive malignancy yield. S Murdoch, AS Al-adhami, S Viswanathan P1 Technical success and efficacy of Pulmonary Radiofrequency ablation: an analysis of 207 ablations S Smith, P Jennings, D Bowers, R Soomal P2 Lesion control and patient outcome: prospective analysis of radiofrequency abaltion in pulmonary colorectal cancer metastatic disease S Smith, P Jennings, D Bowers, R Soomal P3 Hepatocellular carcinoma in a post-TB patient: case of tropical infections and oncologic imaging challenges TM Mutala, AO Odhiambo, N Harish P4 Role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer P. Pricolo, S. Alessi, P. Summers, E. Tagliabue, G. Petralia P5 What a difference a decade makes; comparison of lung biopsies in Glasgow 2005 and 2015 M. Hall, M. Sproule, S. Sheridan P6 Solid pseudopapillary tumour of pancreas: imaging features of a rare neoplasm KY Thein, CH Tan, YL Thian, CM Ho P7 MDCT - pathological correlation in colon adenocarcinoma staging: preliminary experience S De Luca, C Carrera, V Blanchet, L Alarcón, E Eyheremnedy P8 Image guided biopsy of thoracic masses and reduction of pneumothorax risk: 25 years experience B K Choudhury, K Bujarbarua, G Barman P9 Tumour heterogeneity analysis of 18F-FDG-PET for characterisation of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis-1 GJ Cook, E Lovat, M Siddique, V Goh, R Ferner, VS Warbey P10 Impact of introduction of vacuum assisted excision (VAE) on screen detected high risk breast lesions L Potti, B Kaye, A Beattie, K Dutton P11 Can we reduce prevalent recall rate in breast screening? AA Seth, F Constantinidis, H Dobson P12 How to reduce prevalent recall rate? Identifying mammographic lesions with low Positive Predictive Value (PPV) AA Seth ([email protected]), F Constantinidis, H Dobson P13 Behaviour of untreated pulmonary thrombus in oncology patients diagnosed with incidental pulmonary embolism on CT R. Bradley, G. Bozas, G. Avery, A. Stephens, A. Maraveyas P14 A one-stop lymphoma biopsy service – is it possible? S Bhuva, CA Johnson, M Subesinghe, N Taylor P15 Changes in the new TNM classification for lung cancer (8th edition, effective January 2017) LE Quint, RM Reddy, GP Kalemkerian P16 Cancer immunotherapy: a review of adequate imaging assessment G González Zapico, E Gainza Jauregui, R Álvarez Francisco, S Ibáñez Alonso, I Tavera Bahillo, L Múgica Álvarez P17 Succinate dehydrogenase mutations and their associated tumours O Francies, R Wheeler, L Childs, A Adams, A Sahdev P18 Initial experience in the usefulness of dual energy technique in the abdomen SE De Luca, ME Casalini Vañek, MD Pascuzzi, T Gillanders, PM Ramos, EP Eyheremendy P19 Recognising the serious complication of Richter’s transformation in CLL patients C Stove, M Digby P20 Body diffusion-weighted MRI in oncologic practice: truths, tricks and tips M. Nazar, M. Wirtz, MD. Pascuzzi, F. Troncoso, F. Saguier, EP. Eyheremendy P21 Methotrexate-induced leukoencephalopathy in paediatric ALL Patients D.J. Quint, L. Dang, M. Carlson, S. Leber, F. Silverstein P22 Pitfalls in oncology CT reporting. A pictorial review R Rueben, S Viswanathan P23 Imaging of perineural extension in head and neck tumours B Nazir, TH Teo, JB Khoo P24 MRI findings of molecular subtypes of breast cancer: a pictorial primer K Sharma, N Gupta, B Mathew, T Jeyakumar, K Harkins P25 When cancer can’t wait! A pictorial review of oncological emergencies K Sharma, B Mathew, N Gupta, T Jeyakumar, S Joshua P26 MRI of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: an approach to interpretation D Christodoulou, S Gourtsoyianni, A Jacques, N Griffin, V Goh P27 Gynaecological cancers in pregnancy: a review of imaging CA Johnson, J Lee P28 Suspected paraneoplastic neurological syndromes - review of published recommendations to date, with proposed guideline/flowchart JA Goodfellow, AS Al-adhami, S Viswanathan P29 Multi-parametric MRI of the pelvis for suspected local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy R Bradley P30 Utilisation of PI-RADS version 2 in multi-parametric MRI of the prostate; 12-months experience R Bradley P31 Radiological assessment of the post-chemotherapy liver A Yong, S Jenkins, G Joseph P32 Skeletal staging with MRI in breast cancer – what the radiologist needs to know S Bhuva, K Partington P33 Perineural spread of lympoma: an educational review of an unusual distribution of disease CA Johnson, S Bhuva, M Subesinghe, N Taylor P34 Visually isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Diagnostic imaging tools. C Carrera, A Zanfardini, S De Luca, L Alarcón, V Blanchet, EP Eyheremendy P35 Imaging of larynx cancer: when is CT, MRI or FDG PET/CT the best test? K Cavanagh, E Lauhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134651/1/40644_2016_Article_79.pd

Breast cancer during pregnancy: staging, treatment and maternal prognosis

SummaryThe difficulty of treating pregnant patients with breast cancer is of course, the presence of the fetus in utero, and associated safety-related issues for the fetus. But any risk to the fetus, however small or theoretical, is often judged to trump treatment that may be of substantial importance to the wellbeing (and even survival) of the pregnantwoman. The core of this thesis is the belief that treating the pregnantpatient as good as possible is of utmost importance. A healthy mother also benefits the child. Evidence in the treatment of non-pregnant patients cannot automatically be extrapolated to the pregnant patient. The first step of this thesis was to identify current knowledge, gaps, and research priorities. We then decided to concentrate on clinically relevant issues of staging, treatment and prognosis, which would have the biggest impact on treatment of women with BCP. Current practiceWith increasing knowledge, breast cancer during pregnancy has become very treatable. Treatment can be started during pregnancy. However, not all physicians are aware of this fact. We performed the first survey that assessed healthcare providers practice in management of cancer during pregnancy in 2011 (chapter 2.2 ).248 The most important observation of the survey was that there was no consensus about management of cancer during pregnancy among respondents. Termination of pregnancy, delay of maternal treatment and iatrogenic preterm delivery were frequently applied strategies in the management of pregnant cancer patients. These results suggest that current treatment is not in line with recent evidence, and there is room for improvement on the oncologic treatment of pregnant women. Also, 42% of physicians that started to fill in the survey, did not answer any questions on cancer during pregnancy; this might imply an interest but simultaneous lack of knowledge in the subject. Centralisation of treatment is needed. StagingCA 15-3 can be used during pregnancy, although physiologic elevations are possible and relevance of tumour marker measurement at time of diagnosis is debatable (chapter 3.1).149 CA 15-3 levels in pregnant women diagnosed with BCP has not been reported before. We performed a small retrospective analysis within our cohort (chapter 3.2); CA 15-3 measurements during pregnancy varied between trimesters of pregnancy and stage of disease. As with the non-pregnant patient,148 there is insufficientdata to recommend CA 15-3 for diagnosis and staging. Next, we investigated whether breast MRI and WB-DWI are helpful staging tools during pregnancy. In an attempt to minimize ionizing radiation to the fetus, but meanwhile stage the cancer more accurately, whole-body diffusion weighted MRI seems very promising (chapter 3.4). Of course the results of our pilot study need to be confirmed in a larger trial before this technique canbe widely implemented. Limited accessibility and lack of expertise remain a challenge.Treatment and outcomeThere is a need to address radiation safety issues to the fetus when using the SLN mapping techniqueduring pregnancy. The patient needs to be reassured by placing the amount of radiation that reaches the fetus into a proper context.61 Migration of the short-lived gamma-emitting radionuclide 99m-technetium is minimal, with > 95% retention at the injection site.186 Twenty years after lymphatic mapping was first applied to the investigation of breast cancer by Giuliano et al,278 we propose that this technique is not denied to women during pregnancy (chapter 4.1). Obstetrical complications were not different between women who received chemotherapy during pregnancy, and women who received chemotherapy after delivery (chapter 4.2 ).184 Neonatal morbidity was mainly associated with prematurity. Oncological prognosis is correlated to tumour type and stage. We didnot find any difference in prognosis of women diagnosed with BCP compared to young women with non-pregnancy associated breast cancer. The overall maternal survival in our series was comparable to non-pregnant breast cancer patients (chapter 4.3),17 after adjusting for the covariates age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status, histology, type of chemotherapy, use of trastuzumab, radiotherapy and hormone therapy. Breast cancer during pregnancy does not jeopardize maternal prognosis. Last but not least, we attempted to unravel the complexity of ethical issues on cancer during pregnancy in a clear and structured way (chapter 4.4). At all times, we should be guided by what is best for the patient. In the particular case of cancer during pregnancy, we propose to actively involve the pregnant woman in treatment planning, depending on gestational age. The previable fetus needs consent of the pregnant woman to be taken into consideration. The viable fetus requires beneficence and nonmaleficence based obligations which have to be weighed against the obligations towards the pregnant woman. Decisions should be tailored to each specific case. This process requires a multidisciplinary and balanced assessment of clinical benefits and harms to both the pregnant woman and fetus as well as taking into account the values of the pregnant woman. Centralisation of care is needed. In conclusion, breast cancer treatment during pregnancy is safe for mother and child, therefore, pregnant patients with breast cancer should be treated as similarly as possible to non-pregnant patients with breast cancer.status: publishe

Pregnancy-associated breast cancer

Traditionally pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) is defined as any breast carcinoma diagnosed during pregnancy or within the first year after delivery. PABC is a rare event, representing overall between 0.2-3.8% of all breast cancers. The incidence of PABC is about 1 in 3000 pregnancies. The physiological changes occurring in the breast during pregnancy may obscure the presence of a palpable mass in a pregnant woman. Core needle biopsy (CNB) or excisional biopsy are the preferred method to provide definitive diagnosis. The histologic spectrum of PABC does not differ from breast carcinomas diagnosed in non-pregnant women of similar age. Metastatic spread to the placenta is an exceedingly rare event that can occur to PABC patients, mostly in women who have disseminated metastatic tumors. Therapeutic strategies are determined by tumor biology, tumor stage, gestational age and the patient’s and her family’s wishes. The choice for breast cancer surgery and systemic therapy for PABC should follow the same guide-lines as for non-pregnant women. Preterm birth is associated more often with complications regardless of chemotherapy exposure, therefore iatrogenic preterm delivery should be avoided when possible. Overall prognosis of patients diagnosed with PABC is similar to that observed in non-pregnant women of the same age. The institution of international collaborative registries will further help in assessing more accurately the outcomes of the mothers and their children.   Proceedings of the International Course on Perinatal Pathology (part of the 10th International Workshop on Neonatology · October 22nd-25th, 2014) · Cagliari (Italy) · October 25th, 2014 · The role of the clinical pathological dialogue in problem solving Guest Editors: Gavino Faa, Vassilios Fanos, Peter Van Eyke

Weekly Paclitaxel/Carboplatin in the Treatment of Locally Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Vulvar Cancer

Objective: To evaluate efficacy of weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Method: A prospective, single-arm, single-center pilot study was initiated to study response rate of 9 weekly courses of paclitaxel (60 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 2.7). We used this regimen in the neoadjuvant or metastatic setting when surgery would cause serious morbidity or was not an option owing to distant metastases. Primary outcome was response rate, measured according to Response Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Treatment toxicity, surgical morbidity, and type of surgery were also evaluated. Results: We treated 6 patients in the period between May 2009 and May 2011, of which 4 patients had a diagnosis of locally advanced disease and 2 patients had a diagnosis of recurrent disease. A median number of 7.5 cycles of paclitaxel/carboplatin weekly was administered (range, 3-9). No objective response was observed. PaclitaxeUcarboplatin weekly was discontinued after a mean of 4.3 weekly cycles in 3 patients owing to local disease progression. After a median follow-up of 4.2 months (range, 1-29 months), 3 patients died owing to progressive disease and 1 patient died owing to intercurrent disease. The 2 remaining patients underwent radical vulvectomy + bilateral inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The main chemotherapy-related toxicity was anemia and could be managed conservatively with erythropoietin and intravenous iron therapy. Conclusion: Weekly administration of paclitaxel-carboplatin has limited clinical benefit in the treatment of vulvar squamous cell carcinom

Optimal staging of lymphoma during pregnancy is crucial

status: publishe