Search

Background: Offering ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies in premenopausal women with newly diagnosed breast cancer candidates to undergo chemotherapy is standard of care. However, few data are available on uptake and main reasons for refusing these options. Methods: The PREFER study (NCT02895165) is an observational, prospective study enrolling premenopausal women with early breast cancer, aged between 18 and 45 years, candidates to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Primary objective is to collect information on acceptance rates and reasons for refusal of the proposed strategies for ovarian function and/or fertility preservation available in Italy. Results: At the study coordinating center, 223 patients were recruited between November 2012 and December 2020. Median age was 38 years (range 24 – 45 years) with 159 patients (71.3%) diagnosed at ≤40 years. Temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) was accepted by 58 out of 64 (90.6%) patients aged 41-45 years and by 151 out of 159 (95.0%) of those aged ≤40 years. Among patients aged ≤40 years, 57 (35.8%) accepted to access the fertility unit to receive a complete oncofertility counseling and 29 (18.2%) accepted to undergo a cryopreservation technique. Main reasons for refusal were fear of delaying the initiation of antineoplastic treatments and contraindications to the procedure or lack of interest in future childbearing. Patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer had a tendency for a higher acceptance rates of ovarian function and/or fertility preservation strategies than those with hormone-receptor negative disease. Conclusions: More than 90% of premenopausal women with early breast cancer, and particularly those with hormone receptor-positive disease, were concerned about the potential risk of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency and/or infertility and accepted GnRHa administration. Less than 1 out of 5 women aged ≤40 years accepted to undergo cryopreservation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fertility and pregnancy issues are of key importance for young breast cancer patients. Despite several advances in the field, there are still multiple unmet needs and barriers in discussing and dealing with these concerns. To address the significant challenges related to fertility and pregnancy issues, the PREgnancy and FERtility (PREFER) study was developed as a national comprehensive program aiming to optimize care and improve knowledge around these topics.Methods: The PREFER study is a prospective cohort study conducted across several Italian institution affiliated with the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) group evaluating patterns of care and clinical outcomes of young breast cancer patients dealing with fertility and pregnancy issues. It is composed of two distinctive studies: PREFER-FERTILITY and PREFER-PREGNANCY. The PREFER-FERTILITY study is enrolling premenopausal patients aged 18-45 years, diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer, who are candidates to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and not previously exposed to anticancer therapies. The primary objective is to obtain and centralize data about patients' preferences and choices towards the available fertility preserving procedures. The success and safety of these strategies and the hormonal changes during chemotherapy and study follow-up are secondary objectives. The PREFER-PREGNANCY study is enrolling survivors achieving a pregnancy after prior history of breast cancer and patients diagnosed with pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC). The primary objectives are to obtain and centralize data about the management and clinical outcomes of these women. Patients' survival outcomes, and the fetal, obstetrical and paediatric care of their children are secondary objectives. For both studies, the initial planned recruitment period is 5 years and patients will remain in active follow-up for up to 15 years. The PREFER-FERTILITY study was first activated in November 2012, and the PREFER-PREGNANCY study in May 2013.Discussion: The PREFER study is expected to support and improve oncofertility counseling in Italy, to explore the real need of fertility preserving procedures, and to acquire prospectively more robust data on the efficacy and safety of the available strategies for fertility preservation, on the management of breast cancer survivors achieving a pregnancy and of women with PABC (including the possible short- and long-term complications in their children).Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02895165 (Retrospectively registered in August 2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A randomized trial was conducted to compare neoadjuvant standard (S) anthracycline + ifosfamide (AI) regimen with histology-tailored (HT) regimen in selected localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The results of the trial demonstrated the superiority of S in all STS histologies except for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS) where S and HT appeared to be equivalent. To further evaluate the noninferiority of HT compared with S, the HG-MLPS cohort was expanded., Patients and Methods: Patients had localized high-grade (cellular component >5%; size ≥5 cm; deeply seated) MLPS of extremities or trunk wall. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was overall survival (OS). The trial used a noninferiority Bayesian design, wherein HT would be considered not inferior to S if the posterior probability of the true hazard ratio (HR) being >1.25 was <5%., Results: From May 2011 to June 2020, 101 patients with HG-MLPS were randomly assigned, 45 to the HT arm and 56 to the S arm. The median follow-up was 66 months (IQR, 37-89). Median size was 107 mm (IQR, 84-143), 106 mm (IQR, 75-135) in the HT arm and 108 mm (IQR, 86-150) in the S arm. At 60 months, the DFS and OS probabilities were 0.86 and 0.73 (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.46]; log-rank P = .26 for DFS) and 0.88 and 0.90 (HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.37 to 3.93]; log-rank P = .77 for OS) in the HT and S arms, respectively. The posterior probability of HR being >1.25 for DFS met the Bayesian monitoring cutoff of <5% (4.93%). This result confirmed the noninferiority of trabectedin to AI suggested in the original study cohort., Conclusion: Trabectedin may be an alternative to standard AI in HG-MLPS of the extremities or trunk when neoadjuvant treatment is a consideration.

Purpose: To determine whether the administration of histology-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HT) was superior to the administration of standard anthracycline plus ifosfamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy (A+I) in high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of an extremity or the trunk wall., Patients and Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Patients had localized high-risk STS (grade 3; size, ≥ 5 cm) of an extremity or trunk wall, belonging to one of the following five histologic subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS); leiomyosarcoma (LMS), synovial sarcoma (SS), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three cycles of A+I or HT. The HT regimens were as follows: trabectedin in HG-MLPS; gemcitabine plus dacarbazine in LMS; high-dose prolonged-infusion ifosfamide in SS; etoposide plus ifosfamide in MPNST; and gemcitabine plus docetaxel in UPS. Primary and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01710176)., Results: Between May 2011 and May 2016, 287 patients (UPS: n = 97 [33.8%]; HG-MLPS: n = 65 [22.6%]; SS: n = 70 [24.4%]; MPNST: n = 27 [9.4%]; and LMS: n = 28 [9.8%]) were randomly assigned to either A+I or HT. At the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 52 months, the projected DFS and OS probabilities were 0.55 and 0.47 (log-rank P = .323) and 0.76 and 0.66 (log-rank P = .018) at 60 months in the A+I arm and HT arm, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were observed., Conclusion: In a population of patients with localized high-risk STS, HT was not associated with a better DFS or OS, suggesting that A+I should remain the regimen to choose whenever neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used in patients with high-risk STS.