Search

Background: To determine the incidence of reversible amenorrhea in women with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy with or without docetaxel.Methods: We studied the incidence and duration of amenorrhea induced by two chemotherapy regimens: (i) 6 cycles of 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2, epirubicin 100 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (6FEC) and (ii) 3 cycles of FEC 100 followed by 3 cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (3FEC/3D). Reversible amenorrhea was defined as recovery of regular menses and, where available (101 patients), premenopausal hormone values (luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol) in the year following the end of chemotherapy.Results: One hundred and fifty-four premenopausal patients were included: 84 treated with 6FEC and 70 with 3FEC/3D. The median age was 43.5 years (range: 28-58) in the 6FEC arm and 44 years (range: 29-53) in the 3FEC/3D arm. Seventy-eight percent of patients were treated in the context of the PACS 01 trial. The incidence of chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea at the end of chemotherapy was similar in the two groups: 93 % in the 6FEC arm and 92.8 % in the 3FEC/3D arm. However, in the year following the end of chemotherapy, more patients recovered menses in the 3FEC/3D arm than in the 6FEC arm: 35.5 % versus 23.7 % (p = 0.019). Among the 101 patients for whom hormone values were available, 43 % in the 3FEC/3D arm and 29 % in the 6FEC arm showed premenopausal levels one year after the end of chemotherapy (p < 0.01). In the 3FEC/3D group, there was a statistically significant advantage in disease-free survival (DFS) for patients who were still amenorrheic after one year, compared to patients who had recovered regular menses (p = 0.0017).Conclusion: Our study suggests that 3FEC/3D treatment induces more reversible amenorrhea than 6FEC. The clinical relevance of these findings needs to be investigated further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The viral pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disrupted cancer patient management around the world. Most reported data relate to incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe COVID-19. The safety of systemic anti-cancer therapy in oncology patients with non-severe COVID-19 is an important matter in daily practice., Methods: ONCOSARS-1 was a single-center, academic observational study. Adult patients with solid tumors treated in the oncology day unit with systemic anti-cancer therapy during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium were prospectively included. All patients (n = 363) underwent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological testing after the first peak of the pandemic in Belgium. Additionally, 141 of these patients also had a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test during the pandemic. The main objective was to retrospectively determine the safety of systemic cancer treatment, measured by the rate of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative patients., Results: Twenty-two (6%) of the 363 eligible patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and/or serology. Of these, three required transient oxygen supplementation, but none required admission to the intensive care unit. Hematotoxicity was the only adverse event more frequently observed in SARS-CoV-2 -positive patients than in SARS-CoV-2-negative patients: 73% vs 35% (P < 0.001). This association remained significant (odds ratio (OR) 4.1, P = 0.009) even after adjusting for performance status and type of systemic treatment. Hematological adverse events led to more treatment delays for the SARS-CoV-2-positive group: 55% vs 20% (P < 0.001). Median duration of treatment interruption was similar between the two groups: 14 and 11 days, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, infections unrelated to COVID-19, and bleeding events occurred at a low rate in the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients., Conclusion: Systemic anti-cancer therapy appeared safe in ambulatory oncology patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were, however, more treatment delays in the SARS-CoV-2-positive population, mainly due to a higher rate of hematological adverse events.

Background: Patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) receiving platinum-based chemotherapy as their first-line treatment have a dismal prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of ~7 months. Methotrexate is sometimes used following platinum failure or in patients not fit enough for platinum therapy, but this agent has not demonstrated any OS improvement. Targeted therapies are a novel approach, with the EGFR-targeting monoclonal antibody cetuximab (plus platinum-based chemotherapy) approved in the US and Europe in the first-line R/M setting, and as monotherapy following platinum failure in the US. However, there is still a high unmet medical need for new treatments that improve outcomes in the second-line R/M setting following failure on first-line platinum-containing regimens. Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, was recently approved for the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Afatinib has also shown clinical activity similar to cetuximab in a Phase II proof-of-concept HNSCC trial. Based on these observations, the Phase III, LUX-Head & Neck 1 study is evaluating afatinib versus methotrexate in R/M HNSCC patients following progression on platinum-based chemotherapy in the R/M setting., Methods/design: Patients with progressive disease after one first-line platinum-based chemotherapy are randomised 2:1 to oral afatinib (starting dose 40 mg once daily) or IV methotrexate (starting dose 40 mg/m(2) once weekly) administered as monotherapy with best supportive care until progression or intolerable adverse events. Efficacy of afatinib versus methotrexate will be assessed in terms of progression-free survival (primary endpoint). Disease progression will be evaluated according to RECIST v1.1 by investigator and independent central review. Secondary endpoints include OS, tumour response and safety. Health-related quality of life and biomarker assessments will also be performed., Discussion: If the LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial meets its primary endpoint, it will demonstrate the ability of afatinib to elicit an improved treatment benefit versus a commonly used chemotherapy agent in the second-line treatment of R/M HNSCC patients who have failed on first-line platinum-based therapy, confirm the clinical efficacy of afatinib observed in the Phase II proof-of-concept study, and establish a new standard of care for this patient population.

Inflammation and cancer have a profound yet ambiguous relationship. Inflammation - especially chronic inflammation - has protumorigenic effects, but inflammatory cells also mediate an immune response against the tumor and immunosuppression is known to increase the risk for certain tumors.This article reviews current literature on the role of inflammation in cancer and the cancer risk in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). We discuss the effect on cancer risk of different drug classes used in the treatment of IMIDs treatment, including biologicals such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.Overall cancer incidence and mortality risk are similar to the general population in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and slightly increased for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, with risk profiles differing for different tumor types. Increased risk for non-melanoma skin cancer is associated with thiopurine treatment in IBD, with the combination of anti-TNF and methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis and with PUVA, cyclosporine and anti-TNF treatment in psoriasis. Data on the safety of using biologic or immunosuppressant therapy in IMID patients with a history of cancer are scarce.This review provides clinicians with a solid background to help them in making decisions about treatment of immune-mediated diseases in patients with a tumor history.This article is related to another review article in Molecular Cancer: http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/12/1/86.

Background: The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting., Methods: Nine oncologists and six hematologists from different Belgian general hospitals and university centers were surveyed to collect expert opinion and real-life data (year 2007) on the use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the clinical management of FN in patients aged <65 years with breast cancer or NHL. Data were retrospectively obtained, over a 6-month observation period., Results: The most frequently used regimens in breast cancer patients (n = 161) were FEC (45%), FEC-T (37%) and docetaxel alone (6%). In NHL patients (n = 39), R-CHOP-21 (33%) and R-ACVBP-14 (15%) were mainly used. Without G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP), FN occurred in 31% of breast cancer patients, and 13% had PSN. After G-CSF secondary prophylaxis (SP), 4% experienced further FN events. Only 1 breast cancer patient received PP, and did not experience a severe neutropenic event. Overall, 30% of chemotherapy cycles observed in breast cancer patients were protected by PP/SP. In 10 NHL patients receiving PP, 2 (20%) developed FN, whereas 13 (45%) of the 29 patients without PP developed FN and 3 (10%) PSN. Overall, 55% of chemotherapy cycles observed in NHL patients were protected by PP/SP. Impaired chemotherapy delivery (timing and/or dose) was reported in 40% (breast cancer) and 38% (NHL) of patients developing FN. Based on oncologist expert opinion, hospitalization rates for FN (average length of stay) without and with PP were, respectively, 48% (4.2 days) and 19% (1.5 days). Similar rates were obtained from hematologists., Conclusions: Despite the studied chemotherapy regimens being known to be associated with a moderate or high risk of FN, upfront G-CSF prophylaxis was rarely used. The observed incidence of severe neutropenic events without G-CSF prophylaxis was higher than generally reported in the literature. The impact on medical resources used is sizeable.

Background: Although microarray technology allows the investigation of the transcriptomic make-up of a tumor in one experiment, the transcriptome does not completely reflect the underlying biology due to alternative splicing, post-translational modifications, as well as the influence of pathological conditions (for example, cancer) on transcription and translation. This increases the importance of fusing more than one source of genome-wide data, such as the genome, transcriptome, proteome, and epigenome. The current increase in the amount of available omics data emphasizes the need for a methodological integration framework., Methods: We propose a kernel-based approach for clinical decision support in which many genome-wide data sources are combined. Integration occurs within the patient domain at the level of kernel matrices before building the classifier. As supervised classification algorithm, a weighted least squares support vector machine is used. We apply this framework to two cancer cases, namely, a rectal cancer data set containing microarray and proteomics data and a prostate cancer data set containing microarray and genomics data. For both cases, multiple outcomes are predicted., Results: For the rectal cancer outcomes, the highest leave-one-out (LOO) areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were obtained when combining microarray and proteomics data gathered during therapy and ranged from 0.927 to 0.987. For prostate cancer, all four outcomes had a better LOO AUC when combining microarray and genomics data, ranging from 0.786 for recurrence to 0.987 for metastasis., Conclusions: For both cancer sites the prediction of all outcomes improved when more than one genome-wide data set was considered. This suggests that integrating multiple genome-wide data sources increases the predictive performance of clinical decision support models. This emphasizes the need for comprehensive multi-modal data. We acknowledge that, in a first phase, this will substantially increase costs; however, this is a necessary investment to ultimately obtain cost-efficient models usable in patient tailored therapy.