Search

Simple Summary: From a scientific perspective, we are beginning to comprehend the evolution of cancer better, but much remains unknown. The quantity of medications has grown significantly during the past few decades; however, most solid tumor outcomes have not been much affected. Circumstances impact genes that are key players in cancer development. Maybe we should concede that the story of cancer never ends. Despite our increasing understanding of the biology and evolution of the cancer process, it is indisputable that the natural process of cancer creation has become increasingly difficult to cure, as more mutations are found with age. It is significantly more difficult to challenge the curative method when there is heterogeneity within the tumor, as it hampers clinical and genetic categorization. With advances in diagnostic technologies and screening leading to progressive tumor shrinkage, it becomes more difficult over time to evaluate the effects of treatment on overall survival. New treatments are often authorized based on early evidence, such as tumor response; disease-free, progression-free, meta-static-free, and event-free survival; and, less frequently, based on clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life, when standard guidelines are not available to approve pharmaceuticals. These clearances usually happen quite rapidly. Although approval takes longer, relative survival demonstrates the genuine worth of a novel medication. Pressure is being applied by pharmaceutical companies and patient groups to approve "new" treatments based on one of the above-listed measures, with results that are frequently insignificantly beneficial and frequently have no impact on quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This paper states that although numerous new drugs are available for breast cancer, no population benefit is shown from the year 2000 on. It urges the oncological community to revise the "drug approach strategy" in daily practice and pay more attention to early detection and prevention. Background: Breast cancer treatment has seen tremendous progress since the early 1980s, with the first findings of new chemotherapy and hormone therapies. Screening started in the same period. Methods: A review of population data (SEER and the literature) shows an increase in recurrence-free survival until 2000 and it stagnates afterwards. Results: Over the period 1980-2000, the 15% survival gain was presented by pharma as a contribution of new molecules. The contribution of screening during that same period was not implemented by them, although screening has been accepted as a routine procedure in the States since the 1980s and everywhere else since 2000. Conclusions: Interpretation of breast cancer outcome has largely focused on drugs, whereas other factors, such as screening, prevention, biologics, and genetics, were largely neglected. More attention should now be paid to examining the strategy based on realistic global data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: A cohort of 123 women with stage I-II breast cancer enrolled in a prospective clinical trial of adjuvant radiotherapy who were followed for over 10 years. Year 2020 was associated with excess mortality. The number of deaths (n = 5) in that single year represented a third of all deaths (n = 15) in the full decade before. There was in that year a significant increase in lung-heart toxicity and a significant decline in lung-heart function as measured by left ventricular ejection fraction, forced vital capacity and carbon-monoxide diffusing capacity. We investigated lung-heart toxicity and mortality in 123 women with stage I-II breast cancer enrolled in 2007–2011 in a prospective trial of adjuvant radiotherapy (TomoBreast). We were concerned whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected the outcomes. All patients were analyzed as a single cohort. Lung-heart status was reverse-scored as freedom from adverse-events (fAE) on a 1–5 scale. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and pulmonary function tests were untransformed. Statistical analyses applied least-square regression to calendar-year aggregated data. The significance of outliers was determined using the Dixon and the Grubbs corrected tests. At 12.0 years median follow-up, 103 patients remained alive; 10-years overall survival was 87.8%. In 2007–2019, 15 patients died, of whom 11 were cancer-related deaths. In 2020, five patients died, none of whom from cancer. fAE and lung-heart function declined gradually over a decade through 2019, but deteriorated markedly in 2020: fAE dipped significantly from 4.6–4.6 to 4.3–4.2; LVEF dipped to 58.4% versus the expected 60.3% (PDixon = 0.021, PGrubbs = 0.054); forced vital capacity dipped to 2.4 L vs. 2.6 L (PDixon = 0.043, PGrubbs = 0.181); carbon-monoxide diffusing capacity dipped to 12.6 mL/min/mmHg vs. 15.2 (PDixon = 0.008, PGrubbs = 0.006). In conclusion, excess non-cancer mortality was observed in 2020. Deaths in that year totaled one-third of the deaths in the previous decade, and revealed observable lung-heart deterioration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-term prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after breast cancer adjuvant radiotherapy is scarce. TomoBreast compared conventional radiotherapy (CR) with tomotherapy (TT), on the hypothesis that TT might reduce lung-heart toxicity.Methods: Among 123 women consenting to participate, 64 were randomized to CR, 59 to TT. CR delivered 50 Gy in 25 fractions/5 weeks to breast/chest wall and regional nodes if node-positive, with a sequential boost (16 Gy/8 fractions/1.6 weeks) after lumpectomy. TT delivered 42 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks to breast/chest wall and regional nodes if node-positive, 51 Gy simultaneous-integrated-boost in patients with lumpectomy. PRO were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire QLQ-C30. PRO scores were converted into a symptom-free scale, 100 indicating a fully symptom-free score, 0 indicating total loss of freedom from symptom. Changes of PRO over time were analyzed using the linear mixed-effect model. Survival analysis computed time to > 10% PRO-deterioration. A post-hoc cardiorespiratory outcome was defined as deterioration in any of dyspnea, fatigue, physical functioning, or pain.Results: At 10.4 years median follow-up, patients returned on average 9 questionnaires/patient, providing a total of 1139 PRO records. Item completeness was 96.6%. Missingness did not differ between the randomization arms. The PRO at baseline were below the nominal 100% symptom-free score, notably the mean fatigue-free score was 64.8% vs. 69.6%, pain-free was 75.4% vs. 75.3%, and dyspnea-free was 84.8% vs. 88.5%, in the TT vs. CR arm, respectively, although the differences were not significant. By mixed-effect modeling on early ≤2 years assessment, all three scores deteriorated, significantly for fatigue, P ≤ 0.01, without effect of randomization arm. By modeling on late assessment beyond 2 years, TT versus CR was not significantly associated with changes of fatigue-free or pain-free scores but was associated with a significant 8.9% improvement of freedom from dyspnea, P = 0.035. By survival analysis of the time to PRO deterioration, TT improved 10-year survival free of cardiorespiratory deterioration from 66.9% with CR to 84.5% with TT, P = 0.029.Conclusion: Modern radiation therapy can significantly improve long-term PRO.Trial Registration: Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00459628 , April 12, 2007 prospectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]