Search

Simple Summary: The primary risk regarding Helicobacter pylori infection is that it is associated with gastric cancer. The lack of eradication of Helicobacter pylori has led to an increase in the prevalence of gastric cancer. We examined the literature from the year 2024 related to the Helicobacter pylori/gastric cancer association. Immunological studies increased, but they did not convince in the study of this infection. Most of the examined studies address the clinical treatment of this bacterium. However, to the same extent, other studies have investigated genetically individualized treatment. If, until now, clinical treatments have not yet been able to eradicate this bacterium, we recommend genetically individualized treatment. Numerous studies have been performed on Helicobacter pylori infection because of the high death rate linked to this illness and gastric cancer. An update on the key developments in recent years in the investigation of Helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer is the goal of this review. Using the search term "Helicobacter pylori, gastric cancer", the PubMed database was searched. Only papers published in 2024 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Because case report papers were not part of our investigation, they satisfied the exclusion criteria. Most of the research on the variable genes of Helicobacter pylori is guided by genetics to determine potential treatments. Studies on clinical treatments for the eradication of H. pylori with promising therapeutic options are needed. We found the fewest studies related to the immunopathology of H. pylori infection, which is still unknown. In conclusion, priority should be given to this kind of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Constant technological development of modern imaging has led to substantial improvement in management and decision-making in the diagnostic and prognostic process of many different neoplasms. This also applies to cervical cancer. The main evidence, providing the base of recently updated ESGO-ESTRO-ESP recommendations (2023) on the management and treatment of cervical cancer, has been evaluated and reviewed in this paper. Ultrasound has been suggested as a valid alternative to MRI in primary diagnostic workup of cervical cancer if performed by an expert sonographer. Additionally, CT or PET/CT exhibits a substantial role in assessing the extrapelvic spread of the disease in locally advanced cases or when suspicious lymph nodes are detected. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the role of different imaging techniques in staging settings, displaying a focused interest in the use of ultrasound. Following the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) joint guidelines (2018) for the management of patients with cervical cancer, treatment decisions should be guided by modern imaging techniques. After five years (2023), an update of the ESGO-ESTRO-ESP recommendations was performed, further confirming this statement. Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound (TRS/TVS) or pelvic magnetic resonance (MRI) enables tumor delineation and precise assessment of its local extent, including the evaluation of the depth of infiltration in the bladder- or rectal wall. Additionally, both techniques have very high specificity to confirm the presence of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes but fail to exclude them due to insufficient sensitivity to detect small-volume metastases, as in any other currently available imaging modality. In early-stage disease (T1a to T2a1, except T1b3) with negative lymph nodes on TVS/TRS or MRI, surgicopathological staging should be performed. In all other situations, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) or 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with CT (PET-CT) is recommended to assess extrapelvic spread. This paper aims to review the evidence supporting the implementation of diagnostic imaging with a focus on ultrasound at primary diagnostic workup of cervical cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) Exon 20 insertion mutations (Exon20ins) used to have poor outcomes after the failure of platinum-based therapies. Amivantamab, a drug that targets two proteins involved in NSCLC (EGFR/MET), was developed and studied in the CHRYSALIS clinical trial. This paper summarizes an analysis comparing outcomes for amivantamab from CHRYSALIS to the outcomes for a mix of treatments that were used in real-world clinical practice (real-world physician's choice [RWPC]). RWPC data were collected from hospitals across Europe in the CATERPILLAR real-world evidence (RWE) study. The outcomes of 114 patients from CHRYSALIS were compared to 55 lines of treatment (LOTs) from CATERPILLAR-RWE, accounting for differences in patient characteristics between the two populations. Overall, the results show that amivantamab was at least twice as good as RWPC for platinum pre-treated patients in terms of tumor response and survival rates. Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) Exon 20 insertions (Exon20ins) at the second line and beyond (2L+) have an unmet need for new treatment. Amivantamab, a bispecific EGFR- and MET-targeted antibody, demonstrated efficacy in this setting in the phase 1b, open-label CHRYSALIS trial (NCT02609776). The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of amivantamab to the choices made by real-world physicians (RWPC) using an external control cohort from the real-world evidence (RWE) chart review study, CATERPILLAR-RWE. Adjustment was conducted to address differences in prognostic variables between cohorts using inverse probability weighting (IPW) and covariate adjustments based on multivariable regression. In total, 114 patients from CHRYSALIS were compared for 55 lines of therapy from CATERPILLAR-RWE. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the amivantamab and IPW-weighted RWPC cohorts. For amivantamab versus RWPC using IPW adjustment, the response rate ratio for the overall response was 2.14 (p = 0.0181), and the progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.42 (p < 0.0001), 0.47 (p = 0.0063) and 0.48 (p = 0.0207), respectively. These analyses provide evidence of clinical and statistical benefits across multiple outcomes and adjustment methods, of amivantamab in platinum pre-treated patients with advanced NSCLC harboring EGFR Exon20ins. These results confirm earlier comparisons versus pooled national registry data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Screening for lung cancer in a high-risk population has been shown to be beneficial, with reduced mortality in large randomised trials. However, the general implementation of screening is not evident and many factors have to be considered. In this paper, we will review the current status of screening for lung cancer in Europe and the many hurdles that have to be overcome. Multidisciplinary cooperation between all specialists dealing with lung cancer is required to obtain the best outcome. Hopefully, Europe's Beating Cancer Plan will incorporate screening for lung cancer to allow general implementation by similar programmes in every European Member State. This will also provide an opportunity for further, large-scale studies to refine the inclusion of specific risk populations, diagnosis and management of screen-detected nodules. Randomized-controlled trials have shown clear evidence that lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in a high-risk population of current or former smokers can significantly reduce lung-cancer-specific mortality by an inversion of stage distribution at diagnosis. This paper will review areas in which there is good or emerging evidence and areas which still require investment, research or represent implementation challenges. The implementation of population-based lung cancer screening in Europe is variable and fragmented. A number of European countries seem be on the verge of implementing lung cancer screening, mainly through the implementation of studies or trials. The cost and capacity of CT scanners and radiologists are considered to be the main hurdles for future implementation. Actions by the European Commission, related to its published Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the proposal to update recommendations on cancer screening, could be an incentive to help speed up its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Endometrial cancer has a high epidemiological impact, and its management is part of everyday clinical practice. International guidelines have been arranged over the years according to major recent discoveries. The application of the guidelines released by different international gynecological societies is still matter of debate as they diverge in many issues. Authors wanted to compare them and point out the differences, aiming to both draw the attention to a need of unification and to provide a useful tool for clinicians. Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in Europe and its management involves a variety of health professionals. In recent years, big discoveries were made concerning the management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer, particularly in the field of molecular biology and minimally invasive surgery. This requires the continuous updating of guidelines and protocols over the years. In this paper, we aim to summarize and compare common points and disparities among protocols for management of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer by leading international gynecological oncological societies. We therefore systematically report the parallel among the guidelines based on the various steps patients with endometrial cancer usually undergo. The comparison between American and European protocols revealed some relevant disparities, in particular regarding surgical staging, molecular biology application as a prognostic tool and follow up regimens. This could possibly cause differences in interpreting and applying protocols in clinical practice in small centers, leading to a lack of adherence to guidelines or even prompting a confusing mix of them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This opinion paper describes the regulatory hurdles for a clinical oncologist and physician scientist to activate an Investigator-Initiated Trial (IIT) before and after 2004 with German regulation as an example. Changes in legal framework with impacts on time and costs to activate a clinical trial are described. Evidence needed to reach the objective of higher patient safety and trial quality by European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 is discussed. Shortly after the beginning of the year 2000, multiple legal changes with impacts on the regulatory framework of clinical trials became effective almost simultaneously. They included the European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 followed by major changes in national drug laws, the change in the legal status of German University Hospitals (1998), and a new disease-related groups (DRG)-based reimbursement system for hospitals in Germany (2000). Together, these changes created enormous bureaucratic and financial inhibition of activation and conduct of academic investigator-initiated clinical trials (IIT). Examples for activating clinical trials in oncology before and after 2004 are outlined and discussed, focussing on extended time frames, the establishment of centralized responsibility structures and the exploding financial consequences. In addition, the evolution of trial numbers and the distribution of trial initiators between "commercial" and "academic" over time are discussed together with the occurrence of clinical registries. At the same time, progress in molecular biology led to a plethora of new targets for effective pharmacological therapy of life-threatening diseases such as cancer, and the overall number of clinical trials has not decreased. Yet, judging the regulatory and administrative hurdles between scientific study design and first-patient on trial before and after 2004 and weighing these against the lack of evidence that this regulation has achieved its goal to enhance patient safety and trial quality, the necessity to completely overhaul this CTD becomes obvious. A main goal of such an initiative should be to minimize bureaucracy. For the specific situation in Germany, relocation of responsibility and freedom to operate in University Hospitals and Medical Faculties back to the physician–scientists and reduction in interference by legal divisions should be a goal as well as increasing the public financial support for IITs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]