Search

Simple Summary: Cervical cancers is a human papillomavirus infection-induced gynecologic cancer. Due to the uneven access to prevention measures in the world, it is still a leading cause of cancer death in women in low- and middle-income countries. The mainstay of treatment for early-stage cervical cancers is upfront surgery. Clinical trials confirmed the place of adjuvant radiotherapy to improve disease control, but also highlighted the need for a careful selection of patients prior to surgery, in order to avoid the cumulative morbidities of each treatment. In locally advanced cervical cancers, the standard of care remains concurrent pelvic chemoradiotherapy followed by an image-guided adaptive brachytherapy boost allowing for dose escalation and leading to a very high probability of local control. Systemic failures remain a major concern, and neoadjuvant or adjuvant approaches in this context are discussed in the light of recent literature. Globally, cervical cancers continue to be one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths. The primary treatment of patients with early-stage disease includes surgery or radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy. The main challenge in treating these patients is to maintain a curative approach and limit treatment-related morbidity. Traditionally, inoperable patients are treated with radiation therapy solely and operable patients undergo upfront surgery followed by adjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy in cases with poor histopathological prognostic features. Patients with locally advanced cervical cancers are treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by an image-guided brachytherapy boost. In these patients, the main pattern of failure is distant relapse, encouraging intensification of systemic treatments to improve disease control. Ongoing trials are evaluating immunotherapy in locally advanced tumours following its encouraging efficacy reported in the recurrent and metastatic settings. In this article, clinical evidence of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments in cervical cancer patients is reviewed, with a focus on potential strategies to improve patients' outcome and minimize treatment-related morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrin α5β1 was suggested to be involved in glioblastoma (GBM) aggressiveness and treatment resistance through preclinical studies and genomic analysis in patients. However, further protein expression data are still required to confirm this hypothesis. In the present study, we investigated by immunofluorescence the expression of integrin α5 and its prognostic impact in a glioblastoma series of patients scheduled to undergo the Stupp protocol as first-line treatment for GBM. The integrin α5 protein expression level was estimated in each tumor by the mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) and allowed us to identify two subpopulations showing either a high or low expression level. The distribution of patients in both subpopulations was not significantly different according to age, gender, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) prognostic score, molecular markers or surgical and medical treatment. A high integrin α5 protein expression level was associated with a high risk of recurrence (HR = 1.696, 95% CI 1.031–2.792, p = 0.0377) and reduced overall survival (OS), even more significant in patients who completed the Stupp protocol (median OS: 15.6 vs. 22.8 months; HR = 2.324; 95% CI 1.168–4.621, p = 0.0162). In multivariate analysis, a high integrin α5 protein expression level was confirmed as an independent prognostic factor in the subpopulation of patients who completed the temozolomide-based first-line treatment for predicting OS over age, extent of surgery, RPA score and O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation (p = 0.029). In summary, for the first time, our study validates that a high integrin α5 protein expression level is associated with poor prognosis in GBM and confirms its potential as a therapeutic target implicated in the Stupp protocol resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: A retrospective multicentric study of 322 patients with head and neck cancers of unknown primary (HNCUP) was performed testing the impact of neck dissection (ND) extent on nodal relapse, progression-free survival and survival. After 5 years, the incidence of nodal relapse was 13.4%, and progression-free survival (PFS) was 59.1%. In multivariate analysis after adjusting for nodal stage, the risk of nodal relapse or progression was reduced with lymphadenectomy, selective ND or radical/modified ND but survival rates were similar. Patients undergoing lymphadenectomy or ND had significantly better PFS and a lower nodal relapse incidence in the N1 + N2a group, but the improvement was not significant for the N2b or N2 + N3c patients. Severe toxicity rates exceeded 40% with radical ND. In HNCUP, ND improves PFS regardless of nodal stage but fails to improve survival. The magnitude of the benefit of ND did not appear to depend on ND extent and decreased with a more advanced nodal stage. Purpose: Management of head and neck cancers of unknown primary (HNCUP) combines neck dissection (ND) and radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy. The prognostic value of ND has hardly been studied in HNCUP. Methods: A retrospective multicentric study assessed the impact of ND extent (adenectomy, selective ND, radical/radical-modified ND) on nodal relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) or survival, taking into account nodal stage. Results: 53 patients (16.5%) had no ND, 33 (10.2%) had lymphadenectomy, 116 (36.0%) underwent selective ND and 120 underwent radical/radical-modified ND (37.3%), 15 of which received radical ND (4.7%). With a 34-month median follow-up, the 3-year incidence of nodal relapse was 12.5% and progression-free survival (PFS) 69.1%. In multivariate analysis after adjusting for nodal stage, the risk of nodal relapse or progression was reduced with lymphadenectomy, selective or radical/modified ND, but survival rates were similar. Patients undergoing lymphadenectomy or ND had a better PFS and lowered nodal relapse incidence in the N1 + N2a group, but the improvement was not significant for the N2b or N2 + N3c patients. Severe toxicity rates exceeded 40% with radical ND. Conclusion: In HNCUP, ND improves PFS, regardless of nodal stage. The magnitude of the benefit of ND does not appear to depend on ND extent and decreases with a more advanced nodal stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]