Search

Breast cancer stands as the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the primary cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide, including Italy. With the increasing number of survivors, many are enrolled in regular follow-up programs. However, adherence to recommendations from scientific societies (such as ASCO, ESMO, AIOM) for breast cancer follow-up management varies in daily clinical practice across different cancer centers, potentially resulting in unequal management and escalating costs. To address these concerns, the Italian Association of Multidisciplinary Oncology Groups (AIGOM) orchestrated a Consensus on early Breast Cancer follow-up utilizing the Estimate-Talk-Estimate methodology. Following the identification of 18 Items and 38 statements by a select Board, 46 out of 54 (85.1%) experts comprising a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional panel expressed their degree of consensus (Expert Panel). The Expert Panel underscores the potential for the multidisciplinary team to tailor follow-up intensity based on the individual risk of recurrence. In selected cases, the general practitioner may be recommended as the clinical lead for breast cancer follow-up, both after completion of adjuvant treatment and at early initiation of endocrine therapy in low-risk patients. Throughout follow-up, and alongside oncologic surveillance, the expert panel advises osteometabolic, cardiologic, and gynecologic surveillance for the early detection and management of early and late treatment toxicities. Moreover, preserving quality of life is emphasized, with provisions for psycho-oncologic support and encouragement to adopt protective lifestyle behaviors., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: None of the authors has any interests to report directly related to this manuscript. Outside the scope of this manuscript: Stefania Gori, Fiorenza De Rose, no conflict of interests to declare. Antonella Ferro, honoraria from Novartis, MDS, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Ely Lilly, Gentili. Alessandra Fabi grants from Astra Zeneca (steering committee); consulting fees from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini; honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo Exact Sciences; travel grants from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini; advisory board from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini. Catia Angiolini, Giuseppe Azzarello, Maurizio Cancian, Michela Cinquini, Luca Arecco no conflict of interests to declare. Cynthia Aristei, grants from PRIN 2023, from the Ministry of University and Research. Project title “The microbiome in breast cancer therapy and its potential for pRobIOtics to improve treatment outcome. Acronym: BARRIO”. Daniela Bernardi, Laura Biganzoli, Anna Cariello no conflict of interests to declare. Laura Cortesi, report grants from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer; consulting fees and honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Gilead, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Daijchii Sanchio, Novartis; travel grants from Gilead, Pfizer, Daijchi Sanchio; Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis. Elisabetta Cretella no conflict of interests to declare. Carmen Criscitiello, grants from Seagen, Gilead; consulting fees and honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, MSD; Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Roche. Ugo De Giorgi consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer; travel grants from Pfizer, Ipsen, Astrazeneca. Maria Carmen De Santis, Giuseppe Deledda, Massimo Dessena, Sara Donati, Arianna Dri, Gianluigi Ferretti no conflict of interests to declare. Jennifer Foglietta, honoraria from Novartis; travel grants from Roche, Sophos, Pfizer; Advisory Board from Menarini Stem Line. Davide Franceschini, Pierfrancesco Franco, Alessio Schirone no conflict of interests to declare. Daniele Generali, grants from LILT, University of Trieste, Novartis, Roche; consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Accord, Daiichi Dankyo; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Accord, Daiichi Dankyo, Astrazeneca, Istituto Gentili; travel grants from Roche, Menarini; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from Mednote. Lorenzo Gianni, travel grants from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer; Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Seagen. Stefano Giordani, Giovanni Grandi, Maria Cristina Leonardi, Stefano Magno, no conflict of interests to declare. Luca Malorni, consulting fees from Menarini, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche; travel grants from Roche, Menarini, Celgene, IT Health Fusion; Advisory Board from Novartis. Carlotta Mantoan no conflict of interests to declare. Federica Martorana honoraria from Lilly, Daychii-Sankyo, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis; travel grants from Gilead, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly; advisory board from Amgen. Icro Meattini consulting fees from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Menarini StemLine. Bruno Meduri, Laura Merlini, Federica Miglietta, Alessandra Modena, Fabrizio Nicolis, Isabella Palumbo, no conflict of interests to declare. Pietro Panizza honoraria and travel grants from Bayer AG. Francesca Angela Rovera, Piermario Salvini, Armando Santoro, Mario Taffurelli, no conflict of interests to declare. Angela Toss consulting fees and grants from Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Astrazeneca, Gilead, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo; travel grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Astrazeneca. Paolo Tralongo, Monica Turazza, Matteo Valerio, Matteo Verzè no conflict of interests to declare. Patrizia Vici consulting fees from Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis; honoraria from EISAI, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer; travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, IPSEN; advisory board from Pfizer, Novartis. Claudio Zamagni no conflict of interests to declare. Giuseppe Curigliano advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Ellipsis, Veracyte, Exact Science, Celcuity, Merck, BMS, Gilead, Sanofi, Menarini. Giovanni Pappagallo no conflict of interests to declare. Alberto Zambelli consulting fees Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, DaiichiSankyo, Seagen, ExactSciences, MSD, Gentili, Gilead; travel grants from Roche, DaiichiSankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis; advisory board from Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

There is an increasing trend towards using oral antitumoral agents in oncological patients. Compared to parenteral therapy, oral treatment offers convenience for both the patient and the healthcare system, with similar efficacy. However, the benefit deriving from oral drugs will be obtained only if patients adhere strictly to the treatment. Medical oncologists must therefore seek to optimize patient adherence. Breast cancer patients, particularly, are often treated with oral hormonal anticancer agents. In this review, we summarized evidence about adherence of breast cancer patients to oral hormonal anticancer agents and the consequences of poor compliance, the barriers to oral treatment and strategies to overcome them.

Background: In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized CREATE-X study, carried out in Asian patients and including a small subset of triple negative tumors. Thus far, evidence on Caucasian patients is limited, and no real-world data are available., Methods: We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years., Results: Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles., Conclusion: The CaRe study shows an unexpectedly good tolerance of adjuvant capecitabine in a real-world setting, although effectiveness appears to be lower than that observed in the CREATE-X study. Methodological differences between the two studies impose significant limits to comparability concerning effectiveness, and strongly invite further research., Competing Interests: LP received speaker fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. UDG: Pfizer, BMS, MSD, PharmaMAR, AStellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis; Invited speaker Roche, BMS, SAnofi, AstraZeneca; received research grants from AstraZeneca, SAnofi, Roche, outside the submitted work. AF received honoraria as a speaker from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GT: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. DS: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. NLV: Roche, MSD, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Dephaforum, outside the submitted work. OG: Eisai, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. IM: advisory boards from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gentili, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GD’A: Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. MPi Consultant/advisory boards from Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, MSD, outside the submitted work. RB received research grant/advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Eisai, outside the submitted work. FGi: advisory boards from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, outside the submitted work. MEC consultant/advisory role for Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, outside the submitted work. RT: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Exact Science, outside the submitted work. AB: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche outside the submitted work. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees/advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre-Fabre. LG received congress travel accomodation from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis; advisory role for Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. MMin: Novartis, MSD, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EC: Astellas, Roche, BMS, Jansen, MSD, Sirtex, Merck, Bayer, Servier, Novartis, outside the submitted work. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche, Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre and Incyte, outside the submitted work. PV received speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Di Lisa, Krasniqi, Pizzuti, Barba, Cannita, De Giorgi, Borella, Foglietta, Cariello, Ferro, Picardo, Mitidieri, Sini, Stani, Tonini, Santini, La Verde, Gambaro, Grassadonia, Tinari, Garrone, Sarobba, Livi, Meattini, D’Auria, Vergati, Gamucci, Pistelli, Berardi, Risi, Giotta, Lorusso, Rinaldi, Artale, Cazzaniga, Zustovich, Cappuzzo, Landi, Torrisi, Scagnoli, Botticelli, Michelotti, Fratini, Saltarelli, Paris, Muratore, Cassano, Gianni, Gaspari, Veltri, Zoratto, Fiorio, Fabbri, Mazzotta, Ruggeri, Pedersini, Valerio, Filomeno, Minelli, Scavina, Raffaele, Astone, De Vita, Pozzi, Riccardi, Greco, Moscetti, Giordano, Maugeri-Saccà, Zennaro, Botti, Pelle, Cappelli, Cavicchi, Vizza, Sanguineti, Tomao, Cortesi, Marchetti, Tomao, Speranza, Sperduti, Ciliberto and Vici.)

Background: The evolution of therapeutic landscape of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) has led to an unprecedented outcome improvement, even if the optimal sequence strategy is still debated. To address this issue and to provide a picture of the advancement of anti-HER2 treatments, we performed a large, multicenter, retrospective study of HER2-positive BC patients., Methods: The observational PANHER study included 1,328 HER2-positive advanced BC patients treated with HER2 blocking agents since June 2000 throughout July 2020. Endpoints of efficacy were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Patients who received a first-line pertuzumab-based regimen showed better PFS ( p < 0.0001) and OS ( p = 0.004) than those receiving other treatments. Median PFS and mOS from second-line starting were 8 and 28 months, without significant differences among various regimens. Pertuzumab-pretreated patients showed a mPFS and a mOS from second-line starting not significantly affected by type of second line, that is, T-DM1 or lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.80 and p = 0.45, respectively). Conversely, pertuzumab-naïve patients receiving second-line T-DM1 showed a significantly higher mPFS compared with that of patients treated with lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.004). Median OS from metastatic disease diagnosis was higher in patients treated with trastuzumab-based first line followed by second-line T-DM1 in comparison to pertuzumab-based first-line and second-line T-DM1 ( p = 0.003), although these data might be partially influenced by more favorable prognostic characteristics of patients in the pre-pertuzumab era . No significant differences emerged when comparing patients treated with 'old' or 'new' drugs ( p = 0.43), even though differences in the length of the follow-up between the two cohorts should be taken into account., Conclusion: Our results confirmed a relevant impact of first-line pertuzumab-based treatment and showed lower efficacy of second-line T-DM1 in trastuzumab/pertuzumab pretreated, as compared with pertuzumab-naïve patients. Our findings may help delineate a more appropriate therapeutic strategy in HER2-positive metastatic BC. Prospective randomized trials addressing this topic are awaited., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EK, IS, MB, MM, MMaz, EMV, IM, RB, FSDL, MP, LI, ER, NDO, ST, CF, KC, FR, AC, MAF, GB, AB, GDA, AC, AR, BTS, GS, FG, RS, DM, DC, EMC, VS, LMe, GT, MR, LM, MMi, EMR, PS, NS, LL, NT, AG, AFS, RR, MRV, EL, SS, BF, MMS, MDT, AM, AO, VL, EC, GS, PP, FC, LL, CB, FT, SC, GB, FP, FCav, OB, EF, JF, SS, and GC declare no conflicts of interest. LP received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Gentili. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Lilly. CN received travel grants/personal fees from Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AstraZeneca. EB is supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research AIRC-IG 20583; he was supported by the International Association for Lung Cancer (IASLC), the LILT (Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro I Tumori), and Fondazione Cariverona; he received speakers’ and travels’ fee from MSD, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, and Roche; consultant’s fee from Roche, Pfizer; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Roche. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees, advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre Fabre. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer. GT and DS: advisory board Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Incyte. PV received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

Introduction: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is a life-threatening disease, and although some data suggest a trend in survival improvement, it has not yet been unequivocally demonstrated. This study aimed to evaluate the overall survival (OS) of MBC patients, assessing its correlation with prognostic factors., Patients and Methods: COSMO (Checking Overall Survival in a MBC Observational study) is an Italian longitudinal retrospective multicenter study that enrolled patients with MBC diagnosed between 2000 and 2008. The primary objective was to detect a temporal difference in OS; the secondary objective was to identify prognostic factors as causal factors of the temporal variation in OS., Results: A total of 3721 of 3930 patients from 31 centers were distributed in 3 periods: 886 (23.8%), 1302 (35.0%), and 1533 (41.2%) in 2000-2002, 2003-2005, and 2006-2008, respectively. With a median follow-up of 9.3 years, median OS was 2.8 years (95% confidence interval, 2.6-2.9). No difference in OS was found in the 3 cohorts (P for trend = .563). The worst prognosis was observed for patients with triple-negative MBC (OS, 1.5 years) and for those with central nervous system metastases (1.7 years); the best prognosis was observed in those with bone metastases or nonvisceral disease (3.4 and 3.2 years, respectively) and in patients with a disease-free interval, defined as the time between resection of the primary malignancy and diagnosis of MBC, of > 2 years (3 years)., Conclusions: The COSMO study found improvement in OS between 2000 and 2008. Molecular subtype remained the strongest prognostic factor, and the role of other prognostic factors was confirmed, in particular disease-free interval, site of metastasis, and age., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers are mainly linked to variants in BRCA1 /2 genes. Recently, data has shown that identification of BRCA variants has an immediate impact not only in cancer prevention but also in targeted therapeutic approaches. This prospective observational study characterized the overall germline BRCA variant and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) frequency and spectrum in individuals affected by breast (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) and in healthy individuals at risk by sequencing the entire BRCA genes. Of the 363 probands analyzed, 50 (13.8%) were BRCA1/2 mutated, 28 (7.7%) at BRCA1 and 23 (6.3%) at BRCA2 gene. The variant c.5266dupC p.(Gln1756Profs) was the most frequent alteration, representing 21.4% of the BRCA1 variants and 12.0% of all variants identified. The variant c.6313delA p.(Ile2105Tyrfs) of BRCA2 was the most frequent alteration observed in 6 patients. Interestingly, two new variants were identified in BRCA2 . In addition, 25 different VUS were identified; two were reported for the first time in BRCA1 and two in BRCA2 . The number of triple-negative BCs was significantly higher in patients with the pathogenic BRCA1/2 -variant (36.4%) than in BRCA1/2 VUS (16.0%) and BRCA1/2 wild-type patients (10.7%) ( p < 0.001). Our study reveals that the overall frequency of BRCA germline variants in the selected high-risk Italian population is about 13.8%. We believe that our results could have significant implications for preventive strategies for unaffected BRCA -carriers and effective targeted treatments such as PARP inhibitors for patients with BC or OC.

We analyzed data from 738 HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mbc) patients treated with pertuzumab-based regimens and/or T-DM1 at 45 Italian centers. Outcomes were explored in relation to tumor subtype assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). The median progression-free survival at first-line (mPFS1) was 12 months. Pertuzumab as first-line conferred longer mPFS1 compared to other first-line treatments (16 vs. 9 months, p = 0.0001), regardless of IHC subtype. Median PFS in second-line (mPFS2) was 7 months, with no difference by IHC subtype, but it was more favorable with T-DM1 compared to other agents (7 vs. 6 months, p = 0.03). There was no PFS2 gain in patients with tumors expressing both hormonal receptors (HRs; p = 0.17), while a trend emerged for tumors with one HR (p = 0.05). Conversely, PFS2 gain was significant in HRs-negative tumors (p = 0.04). Median overall survival (mOS) was 74 months, with no significant differences by IHC subtypes. Survival rates at 2 and 3 years in patients treated with T-DM1 in second-line after pertuzumab were significantly lower compared to pertuzumab-naïve patients (p = 0.01). When analyzed by IHC subtype, the outcome was confirmed if both HRs or no HRs were expressed (p = 0.02 and p = 0.006, respectively). Our results confirm that HRs expression impacts the clinical behavior and novel treatment-related outcomes of HER2-positive tumors when treatment sequences are considered. Moreover, multivariate analysis showed that HRs expression had no effect on PFS and OS. Further studies are warranted to confirm our findings and clarify the interplay between HER2 and estrogen receptor pathways in HER2-positive (mbc) patients., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: There is no sufficient evidence to establish a standard of care for patients with brain metastases (BM) from HER2 + breast cancer (BC). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of local and systemic treatments on the outcome of patients diagnosed with BM from HER2 + BC over a period of 10 years, from 2005 to 2014., Patients and Methods: Data of 154 patients were retrospectively collected at 14 Italian institutions through a specifically designed database., Results: Median overall survival (OS) was 24.5 months. Patients receiving surgery/stereotactic radiosurgery experienced longer OS compared to those receiving whole-brain radiotherapy or no treatment (33.5 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio = 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.52; P < .001). Interestingly, whole-brain radiotherapy did not improve OS compared to no treatment (11.4 vs. 9.8 months; hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.62; P = .99). HER2-targeted therapy was associated with better OS compared to systemic therapy without HER2-targeted therapy or no systemic therapy (27.5 vs. 5.4 months; hazard ratio = 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.41; P < .001). At multivariate analysis stratified by local treatments, systemic therapy, Karnofsky performance status, and neurologic symptoms significantly affected OS. Age, number of BM, steroid therapy, number of previous lines of systemic therapy, status of extracranial disease, and period of diagnosis had no significant impact on OS., Conclusion: Patients with BM from HER2 + BC treated with surgery/stereotactic radiosurgery as local treatment and HER2-targeted therapy as systemic treatment experienced the best outcomes. Patients with low Karnofsky performance status and neurologic symptoms had poor survival., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Angiogenesis plays a pivotal role in cancer progression and is required for tissue invasion and metastasis. Starting with Folkman's initial observations in 1971, basic research continued to shed new molecular insight into this multifaceted process, leading to the development of several anti-angiogenic drugs. To date, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibodies, such as bevacizumab and ramucirumab, and receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (e.g., sorafenib, sunitinib, regorafenib and axitinib) have had a profound impact on the way we treat patients with advanced cancer, providing in some cases unprecedented clinical benefit. The molecular mechanisms underlying tumor-driven angiogenesis have been explored extensively and have unveiled a number of potential clinically relevant targets, including several novel enzymes. In this review, we summarized the current strategies to target tumor-driven angiogenesis through the inhibition of relevant and selected classes of enzymes involved in this process., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We carried out a retrospective observational study of 264 HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients to explore the efficacy of first-line treatment with pertuzumab/trastuzumab/taxane in real-world setting. Survival data were analyzed by Kaplan Meier curves and log rank test. Median follow-up, length of pertuzumab/trastuzumab/taxane treatment and of pertuzumab, trastuzumab maintenance were 21, 4 and 15 months, respectively. The response rate was 77.3%, and the clinical benefit rate 93.6%. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 21 months, and median overall survival (mOS) was not reached. When comparing patients by trastuzumab-pretreatment, similar PFS were observed, although a longer OS was reached in trastuzumab-naïve patients (p = 0.02). Brain metastases at baseline and their development in course of therapy were associated with significantly shorter PFS (p = 0.0006) and shorter OS, although at a not fully statistically relevant extent (p = 0.06). The addition of maintenance endocrine therapy (ET) to pertuzumab/trastuzumab maintenance was associated with longer PFS (p = 0.0001), although no significant differences were detected in OS (p = 0.31). Results were confirmed by propensity score analysis (p = 0.003 and p = 0.46, respectively). In multivariate models, longer PFS was related to lower Performance Status (PS) (p = 0.07), metastatic stage at diagnosis (p = 0.006) and single metastatic site (p < 0.0001). An OS advantage was observed with lower PS (p < 0.0001), single metastatic site (p = 0.004), no prior exposure to trastuzumab (p = 0.004) and response to pertuzumab-based treatment (p = 0.003). Our results confirm that trastuzumab/pertuzumab/taxane is the standard of care as first-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive ABC even in the real-world setting. Moreover, the double-maintenance therapy (HER2 block and ET) is strongly recommended when feasible.

Objectives: To assess the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes in identifying patients diagnosed with incident carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in three Italian administrative databases., Design: A diagnostic accuracy study comparing ICD-9-CM codes for carcinoma in situ (233.0) and for invasive breast cancer (174.x) with medical chart (as a reference standard). Case definition: (1) presence of a primary nodular lesion in the breast and (2) cytological or histological documentation of cancer from a primary or metastatic site., Setting: Administrative databases from Umbria Region, Azienda Sanitaria Locale (ASL) Napoli 3 Sud (NA) and Friuli VeneziaGiulia (FVG) Region., Participants: Women with breast carcinoma in situ (n=246) or invasive breast cancer (n=384) diagnosed (in primary position) between 2012 and 2014., Outcome Measures: Sensitivity and specificity for codes 233.0 and 174.x., Results: For invasive breast cancer the sensitivities were 98% (95% CI 93% to 99%) for Umbria, 96% (95% CI 91% to 99%) for NA and 100% (95% CI 97% to 100%) for FVG. Specificities were 90% (95% CI 82% to 95%) for Umbria, 91% (95% CI 83% to 96%) for NA and 91% (95% CI 84% to 96%) for FVG.For carcinoma in situ the sensitivities were 100% (95% CI 93% to 100%) for Umbria, 100% (95% CI 95% to 100%) for NA and 100% (95% CI 96% to 100%) for FVG. Specificities were 98% (95% CI 93% to 100%) for Umbria, 86% (95% CI 78% to 92%) for NA and 90% (95% CI 82% to 95%) for FVG., Conclusions: Administrative healthcare databases from Umbria, NA and FVG are accurate in identifying hospitalised news cases of carcinoma of the breast. The proposed case definition is a powerful tool to perform research on large populations of newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Uncertainty exists about the optimal schedule of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with aromatase inhibitors and, to our knowledge, no trial has directly compared the three aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole. We investigated the schedule and type of aromatase inhibitors to be used as adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer., Methods: FATA-GIM3 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of six different treatments in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer that had been completely removed by surgery, any pathological tumour size, and axillary nodal status. Key exclusion criteria were hormone replacement therapy, recurrent or metastatic disease, previous treatment with tamoxifen, and another malignancy in the previous 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned in an equal ratio to one of six treatment groups: oral anastrozole (1 mg per day), exemestane (25 mg per day), or letrozole (2·5 mg per day) tablets upfront for 5 years (upfront strategy) or oral tamoxifen (20 mg per day) for 2 years followed by oral administration of one of the three aromatase inhibitors for 3 years (switch strategy). Randomisation was done by a computerised minimisation procedure stratified for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status; previous chemotherapy; and pathological nodal status. Neither the patients nor the physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The minimum cutoff to declare superiority of the upfront strategy over the switch strategy was assumed to be a 2% difference in disease-free survival at 5 years. Primary efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all patients for whom at least one safety case report form had been completed. Follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2006-004018-42, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00541086., Findings: Between March 9, 2007, and July 31, 2012, 3697 patients were enrolled into the study. After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 46-72), 401 disease-free survival events were reported, including 211 (11%) of 1850 patients allocated to the switch strategy and 190 (10%) of 1847 patients allocated to upfront treatment. 5-year disease-free survival was 88·5% (95% CI 86·7-90·0) with the switch strategy and 89·8% (88·2-91·2) with upfront treatment (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·73-1·08; p=0·23). 5-year disease-free survival was 90·0% (95% CI 87·9-91·7) with anastrozole (124 events), 88·0% (85·8-89·9) with exemestane (148 events), and 89·4% (87·3 to 91·1) with letrozole (129 events; p=0·24). No unexpected serious adverse reactions or treatment-related deaths occurred. Musculoskeletal side-effects were the most frequent grade 3-4 events, reported in 130 (7%) of 1761 patients who received the switch strategy and 128 (7%) of 1766 patients who received upfront treatment. Grade 1 musculoskeletal events were more frequent with the upfront schedule than with the switch schedule (924 [52%] of 1766 patients vs 745 [42%] of 1761 patients). All other grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in either group., Interpretation: 5 years of treatment with aromatase inhibitors was not superior to 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 3 years of aromatase inhibitors. None of the three aromatase inhibitors was superior to the others in terms of efficacy. Therefore, patient preference, tolerability, and financial constraints should be considered when deciding the optimal treatment approach in this setting., Funding: Italian Drug Agency., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Angiogenesis has always been considered as a fundamental therapeutic target for inhibiting tumor growth and metastasis. To date, anti-angiogenic treatments that have been approved are principally based on either administration of monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor axis or multikinase inhibitors. However, a growing body of evidence is pointing out the role of different classes of enzymes involved in tumor-driven angiogenesis, whose inhibition in preclinical models has already shown encouraging results. This review provides an overview on the current knowledge of potential enzymatic targets involved in tumor-driven angiogenesis and the potential clinical applications deriving from their modulation. Metalloproteinase and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors have been found to be, respectively, inefficacious or unsuitable for clinical applications. Conversely, early clinical studies evaluating the inhibition of heparanase, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase, lysyl oxidase (LOX) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) have shown promising results. Therefore, preliminary evidence indicates that heparanase, NADPH oxidase, LOX and ACE might represent potential targets for anticancer therapy.

Background: We investigated whether GSTT1 ("null" allele), GSTM1 ("null"allele), GSTP1 (A313G), RFC1 (G80A), MTHFR (C677T), TS (2R/3R) polymorphisms were associated with toxicity and survival in patients with early breast cancer (EBC) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (CT)., Methods: This prospective trial included patients with stage I-III BC subjected to CT with CMF or FEC regimens. PCR-RFLP was performed for MTHFR, RFC1 and GSTP1, while PCR for TS, GSTT1 and GSTM1 genes., Results: Among the 244 patients consecutively enrolled, 48.7% were treated with FEC and 51.3% with CMF. Patients with TS2R/3R genotype showed less frequently severe neutropenia (G3/G4) than those with TS2R/2R and 3R/3R genotype (p = 0.038). Patients with MTHFRCT genotype had a higher probability of developing severe neutropenia than those with MTHFR CC genotype (p = 0.043). Patients with RFC1GG or GSTT1-null genotype or their combination (GSTT1-null/RFC1GG) were significantly associated with a shorter disease free survival (DFS) (p = 0.009, p = 0.053, p = 0.003, respectively) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.036, p = 0.015, p = 0.005, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed the association of RFC1GG genotype with a shorter DFS (p = 0.018) and of GSTT1-null genotype of a worse OS (p = 0.003), as well as for the combined genotypes GSTT1-null/RFC1GG, (DFS: p = 0.004 and OS: p = 0.003)., Conclusions: Our data suggest that TS2R/2R and 3R/3R or MTHFR CT genotypes have a potential role in identifying patients with greater risk of toxicity to CMF/FEC and that RFC1 GG and GSTT1-null genotypes alone or in combination could be important markers in predicting clinical outcome in EBC patients.

Background: The BALLET study was an open-label, multicenter, expanded access study designed to allow treatment with everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer progressed following prior endocrine therapy. A post hoc analysis to evaluate if previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting affects the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane was conducted on the Italian subset, as it represented the major part of the patients enrolled (54%)., Patients and Methods: One thousand one hundred and fifty-one Italian patients were included in the present post hoc analysis, which focused on two sets of patients: patients who never received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (36.1%) and patients who received at least one chemotherapy treatment in the metastatic setting (63.9%)., Results: One thousand one hundred and sixteen patients (97.0%) prematurely discontinued the study drug, and the main reasons reported were disease progression (39.1%), local reimbursement of everolimus (31.1%), and adverse events (AEs) (16.1%). The median duration of study treatment exposure was 139.5 days for exemestane and 135.0 days for everolimus. At least one AE was experienced by 92.5% of patients. The incidence of everolimus-related AEs was higher (83.9%) when compared with those that occurred with exemestane (29.1%), and the most commonly reported everolimus-related AE was stomatitis (51.3%). However, no significant difference in terms of safety related to the combination occurred between patients without and with chemotherapy in the metastatic setting., Conclusion: Real-life data of the Italian patients BALLET-related cohort were an adequate setting to state that previous chemotherapy did not affect the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane., Implications for Practice: With the advent of new targeted agents for advanced or metastatic breast cancer, multiple lines of therapy may be possible, and components of the combined regimens can overlap from one line to another. Thus, it is important to assess even the potential of cumulative and additive toxic effects among the drugs. Previous chemotherapy did not affect the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane. The continuous monitoring of the safety signals of this drug combination from general clinical practice is important, in particular for stomatitis., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Aromatase inhibitors represent an effective endocrine treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, in early stage and in metastatic disease. However, by decreasing levels of serum estrogens they also potentially reduce the protective effect of estrogens on the cardiovascular system. Patients treated with aromatase inhibitors, in fact, compared with those who receive tamoxifen, more often develop hyperlipidemia, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension, which are recognized risk factors for cardiovascular disease. This might raise some concerns especially in the adjuvant setting where the aim of treatment is the cure, and for postmenopausal patients who are already at risk for cardiovascular disease. However, whether the relative higher incidence of cardiac adverse events reported with aromatase inhibitors compared with tamoxifen is related to an actual cardiac toxicity of aromatase inhibitors rather than a cardioprotective effect of tamoxifen is still unclear. In this article we review the available literature on cardiotoxicity of aromatase inhibitors and provide some practical advice to improve the cardiovascular safety profile of these drugs., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are no validated predictive markers for lapatinib and capecitabine in patients with trastuzumab-resistant HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer., Methods: Data of 148 consecutive patients treated with lapatinib and capecitabine from March 2007 to December 2013 were collected from 13 Italian institutions. Estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with logrank test. The association of clinicopathological variables and the outcome was studied by binary logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard analysis., Results: At a median follow-up of 41 months, median PFS and OS were 7 and 21 months, respectively. Patents with a PFS longer than 7 months had a significantly longer OS, compared with patients with a PFS equal to or shorter than 7 months (36 vs 15 months; p<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed the benefit of lapatinib-based therapy in terms of PFS and OS was significantly associated with time-to-progression (TTP) on prior first-line trastuzumab-based therapy. In particular, each additional month on first-line trastuzumab based therapy was associated with a reduction in hazard of progression and death after the initiation of lapatinib-based therapy of 2% and 4%, respectively., Conclusions: A longer TTP to first line trastuzumab seems to predict a prolonged PFS and OS with subsequent lapatinib and capecitabine.

Background: The management of pT1a-b pN0 HER2-positive breast cancer is controversial and no data about the efficacy of trastuzumab in this setting are available from randomized clinical trials. The aims of this retrospective study were to assess how patients are managed in clinical practice in Italy, which clinical or biological characteristics influenced the choice of adjuvant systemic therapy and the outcome of patients., Methods: Data of consecutive patients who underwent surgery from January 2007 to December 2012 for HER2-positive, pT1a-b pN0 M0 breast cancer were retrospectively collected from 28 Italian centres. Analysis of contingency tables and multivariate generalized logit models were used to investigate the association between the baseline clinical and biological features and the treatment strategy adopted., Results: Among 303 enrolled patients, 204 received adjuvant systemic therapy with trastuzumab, 65 adjuvant systemic therapy without trastuzumab and 34 did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy. At the multivariate analysis age, tumor size, proliferation index and hormone receptor status were significantly associated with the treatment choice. Five-year disease-free survival (DFS) probability was 95%, 94.3% and 69.6% for patients treated with adjuvant systemic therapy and trastuzumab, with adjuvant systemic therapy without trastuzumab and for patients who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, respectively (p<0.001)., Conclusions: The majority of patients (66%) with pT1a-b pN0 HER2-positive breast cancer enrolled in this retrospective study received adjuvant systemic therapy with trastuzumab, whereas only 11% patients did not receive any adjuvant systemic therapy. It should be emphasized, however, that in the adjuvant systemic therapy without trastuzumab group 94% of tumors were hormone receptor positive and 89% of patients were treated with endocrine therapy only [corrected]. The 5-year DFS probability was significantly higher for patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy with trastuzumab compared with patients not receiving adjuvant systemic therapy or receiving adjuvant systemic therapy without trastuzumab.

Aims and Background: The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the impact of progesterone receptor (PgR) loss on locoregional recurrence in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive primary breast cancer and ER-positive locoregional recurrence., Patients and Methods: Eight Italian oncology centers collected data from consecutive patients with ER-positive breast cancer and a subsequent ER-positive locoregional recurrence., Results: Data were available for 265 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 1990 and 2009. Median metastasis-free survival was 111 months in patients with PgR-positive primary tumors and locoregional recurrence (PgRpos), 38 months in patients with PgR-negative primary tumors and locoregional recurrence (PgRneg), and 63 months in patients with PgR-positive primary tumors and PgR-negative locoregional recurrence (PgRloss). In multivariate analysis, PgR status was independently associated with metastasis-free survival, with a hazard ratio of 2.84 (95% CI 1.34-6.00) for PgRneg compared with PgRpos, and 2.93 (95% CI: 1.51-5.70) for PgRloss compared with PgRpos., Conclusions: PgR absence was found to be a negative prognostic factor in breast cancer patients with ER-positive locoregional recurrence. Thus, PgR status could be a biological marker in ER-positive recurrent breast cancer.

Aims and Background: The addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer has significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival, although most patients develop resistance or have a primarily resistant disease. The aim of the study was to describe the efficacy and safety of a first-line treatment in unselected metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer patients, treated according to clinical practice., Methods: From 2000 to 2009, we conducted a retrospective multi-institutional analysis of 182 consecutive patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who underwent first-line treatment with trastuzumab. The primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival; the secondary end points were survival after progression in patients treated with second-line chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab and safety. A total of 172 patients were analyzed., Results: Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.2 (95% CI, 1.1-1.4) and 4.4 years (95% CI, 3.6-5.4), respectively. For 100 patients who received second-line chemotherapy, median survival after progression was significantly longer in those who also received trastuzumab: 2.8 (95% CI, 2.1-4.0) versus 1.2 years (95% CI, 0.6-1.9)., Conclusions: Although based on retrospective data, the study confirms the role of trastuzumab as first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer outside of a controlled trial. Moreover, information obtained on the use of trastuzumab beyond disease progression supports its use in this setting.

We present the case of a 51-year-old woman with a follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. After surgery she experienced a relapse. Chemotherapy treatment led only to disease stabilization. In August 2009, we decided to start therapy with sunitinib 50 mg daily in an intermittent schedule (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). A CT scan after 3 months of treatment showed partial remission of disease according to the RECIST criteria. The patient continued sunitinib until January 2011, when CT evidenced progression in the mediastinal lymph nodes and pleura. Genetic analyses were carried out to determine if the clinical response in our patient was correlated with the presence of RET or BRAF mutations. No RET/PTC rearrangements or BRAF-V600E mutation, which are the two most common genetic alterations detected in papillary thyroid carcinoma, were found. It can be hypothesized that the activity of sunitinib in this patient was due to its antiangiogenic properties.

Background: The prognosis of pT1a-pT1b breast cancer (BC) used to be considered very good, with a 10-y RFS of 90%. However, some retrospective studies reported a 10-y RFS of 81%-86% and suggested benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy., Methods: To evaluate the variables that determined the choice of adjuvant chemotherapy and the type of chemotherapy delivered in pT1a-pT1b BC, we analysed the small tumours enrolled in the NEMESI study., Results: Out of 1,894 patients with pathological stage I-II BC enrolled in NEMESI, 402 (21.2%) were pT1a-pT1b. Adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered in 127/402 (31.59%). Younger age, grading G3, high proliferative index, ER-negative and HER2-positive status were significantly associated with the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy. An anthracycline without taxane regimen was administered in 59.1% of patients, anthracycline with taxane in 24.4%, a CMF-like regimen in 14.2% and taxane in 2.4%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 88.4% triple-negative and 73.46% HER2-positive pT1a-pT1b BC. Adjuvant trastuzumab was delivered in 30/49 HER2-positive BC (61.2%)., Conclusions: Adjuvant chemotherapy was delivered in 31.59% T1a-pT1b BC treated at 63 Italian oncological centres from January 2008 to June 2008. The choice to deliver chemotherapy was based on biological prognostic factors. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was administered in 83.5% patients.

Aims and Background: HER-3 signaling might contribute to resistance to trastuzumab. To clarify the role of HER-3 in HER-2-positive breast cancer, it is important to evaluate the level of HER-3 and its correlations with clinical outcome in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with trastuzumab., Methods: HER-3 status by immunohistochemistry was evaluated in HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients treated with trastuzumab-based therapy at our institution. Two scorings were utilized for interpreting staining for HER-3, and the correlation between HER-3 status and clinical outcome was evaluated., Results: We evaluated HER-3 status in 61 of 76 HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancers treated with trastuzumab-based therapy at our institution from 4/1999 to 3/2006. We observed 55.2% objective responses; median time to progression and overall survival from start of trastuzumab therapy were 9.6 months (0.921-78.87) and 29.1 months (1.4-129.5+), respectively. With a cutoff of 50% staining tumor cells, we found 30 HER-3-negative and 31 HER-3-positive tumors. HER-3 status was not significantly associated with clinical outcome, but a shorter time to progression and overall survival were observed in patients with HER-3-positive tumors., Conclusions: HER-3 status by immunohistochemistry was not significantly associated with clinical outcome in HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of HER-3.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the western world. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 80% of these thoracic malignancies, with 1.2 million new cases diagnosed worldwide each year. The vast majority of NSCLC patients present with disease that is beyond the scope of surgical cure and are, therefore, candidates for palliative chemotherapy, which has been the subject of intensive investigation in recent years. Although platinum-based therapies modestly improve survival and palliate some tumour-related symptoms in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, at times the chemotherapy-related side effects outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the identification of new regimens that maintain the same level of efficacy as platinum-based combinations but offer a better toxicity profile is a key goal in this important area of medicine.