Explore the vast range of titles available.

Adjuvant radiotherapy reduces the risk of biochemical progression in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy. We aimed to compare adjuvant versus early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy, combined with short-term hormonal therapy, in terms of oncological outcomes and tolerance. GETUG-AFU 17 was a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial done at 46 French hospitals. Men aged at least 18 years who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, localised adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated with radical prostatectomy, who had pathologically-staged pT3a, pT3b, or pT4a (with bladder neck invasion), pNx (without pelvic lymph nodes dissection), or pN0 (with negative lymph nodes dissection) disease, and who had positive surgical margins were eligible for inclusion in the study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either immediate adjuvant radiotherapy or delayed salvage radiotherapy at the time of biochemical relapse. Random assignment, by minimisation, was done using web-based software and stratified by Gleason score, pT stage, and centre. All patients received 6 months of triptorelin (intramuscular injection every 3 months). The primary endpoint was event-free survival. Efficacy and safety analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00667069. Between March 7, 2008, and June 23, 2016, 424 patients were enrolled. We planned to enrol 718 patients, with 359 in each study group. However, on May 20, 2016, the independent data monitoring committee recommended early termination of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. At database lock on Dec 19, 2019, the overall median follow-up time from random assignment was 75 months (IQR 50–100), 74 months (47–100) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 78 months (52–101) in the salvage radiotherapy group. In the salvage radiotherapy group, 115 (54%) of 212 patients initiated study treatment after biochemical relapse. 205 (97%) of 212 patients started treatment in the adjuvant group. 5-year event-free survival was 92% (95% CI 86–95) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 90% (85–94) in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·48–1·36; log-rank p=0·42). Acute grade 3 or worse toxic effects occurred in six (3%) of 212 patients in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and in four (2%) of 212 patients in the salvage radiotherapy group. Late grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicities were reported in 125 (59%) of 212 patients in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 46 (22%) of 212 patients in the salvage radiotherapy group. Late genitourinary adverse events of grade 2 or worse were reported in 58 (27%) of 212 patients in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 14 (7%) of 212 patients in the salvage radiotherapy group (p<0·0001). Late erectile dysfunction was grade 2 or worse in 60 (28%) of 212 in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 17 (8%) of 212 in the salvage radiotherapy group (p<0·0001). Although our analysis lacked statistical power, we found no benefit for event-free survival in patients assigned to adjuvant radiotherapy compared with patients assigned to salvage radiotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increased the risk of genitourinary toxicity and erectile dysfunction. A policy of early salvage radiotherapy could spare men from overtreatment with radiotherapy and the associated adverse events. French Health Ministry and Ipsen.

Radiotherapy is the standard salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy. To date, the role of androgen deprivation therapy has not been formally shown. In this follow-up study, we aimed to update the results of the GETUG-AFU 16 trial, which assessed the efficacy of radiotherapy plus androgen suppression versus radiotherapy alone. GETUG-AFU 16 was an open-label, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial that enrolled men (aged ≥18 years) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate (but no previous androgen suppression or pelvic radiotherapy), stage pT2, T3, or T4a (bladder neck involvement only) and pN0 or pNx according to the tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) staging system, whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration increased from 0·1 ng/mL to between 0·2 ng/mL and 2·0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy, without evidence of clinical disease. Patients were assigned through central randomisation (1:1) to short-term androgen suppression (subcutaneous injection of 10·8 mg goserelin on the first day of irradiation and 3 months later) plus radiotherapy (3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy of 66 Gy in 33 fractions, 5 days a week for 7 weeks) or radiotherapy alone. Randomisation was stratified using a permuted block method (block sizes of two and four) according to investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This post-hoc one-shot data collection done 4 years after last data cutoff included patients who were alive at the time of the primary analysis and updated long-term patient status by including dates for first local progression, metastatic disease diagnosis, or death (if any of these had occurred) or the date of the last tumour evaluation or last PSA measurement. Survival at 120 months was reported. Late serious adverse effects were assessed. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00423475. Between Oct 19, 2006, and March 30, 2010, 743 patients were randomly assigned, 374 to radiotherapy alone and 369 to radiotherapy plus goserelin. At the time of data cutoff (March 12, 2019), the median follow-up was 112 months (IQR 102–123). The 120-month progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI 58–69) for patients treated with radiotherapy plus goserelin and 49% (43–54) for patients treated with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·54, 0·43–0·68; stratified log-rank test p<0·0001). Two cases of secondary cancer occurred since the primary analysis, but were not considered to be treatment related. No treatment-related deaths occurred. The 120-month progression-free survival confirmed the results from the primary analysis. Salvage radiotherapy combined with short-term androgen suppression significantly reduced risk of biochemical or clinical progression and death compared with salvage radiotherapy alone. The results of the GETUG-AFU 16 trial confirm the efficacy of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy as salvage treatment in patients with increasing PSA concentration after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The French Health ministry, AstraZeneca, la Ligue Contre le Cancer, and La Ligue de Haute-Savoie.

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) represents a challenging complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Despite the intensive preclinical research in the field of prevention and treatment of aGVHD, and the presence of a well-established clinical grading system to evaluate human aGVHD, such a valid tool is still lacking for the evaluation of murine aGVHD. Indeed, several scoring systems have been reported, but none of them has been properly evaluated and they all share some limitations: they incompletely reflect the disease, rely on severity stages that are distinguished by subjective assessment of clinical criteria and are not easy to discriminate, which could render evaluation more time consuming, and their reproducibility among different experimenters is uncertain. Consequently, clinical murine aGVHD description is often based merely on animal weight loss and mortality. Here, we propose a simple scoring system of aGVHD relying on the binary (yes or no) evaluation of five important visual parameters that reflect the complexity of the disease without the need to sacrifice the mice. We show that this scoring system is consistent with the gold standard histological staging of aGVHD across several donor/recipient mice combinations. This system is also a strong predictor of survival of recipient mice when used early after transplant and is highly reproducible between experimenters.

Background Prostate cancer (PCa) and obesity are two ever-increasing public health issues that can independently impair the quality of life (QOL) of affected patients. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of overweight and obesity on the QOL of patients with PCa receiving an anticancer treatment. Methods We performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The search equation targeted studies that included PCa patients who had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 25 kg/m 2 , who were receiving anticancer therapy, and whose QOL was analyzed according to validated or non-validated scores. Results Of 759 identified articles, we selected 20 studies published between 2000 and 2019 of 12,529 patients treated for PCa, including 5549 overweight or obese patients. QOL assessment was performed using nine validated scales and two non-validated questionnaires. Of seven studies on radiotherapy, six found obesity to have a negative impact on patients' QOL (especially urinary, sexual, and bowel-related QOL). Thirteen studies assessed the QOL of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, with a BMI > 25 kg/m 2 having no observed impact. In obese patients under 65 years of age and without comorbidities, nerve-sparing surgery appeared to limit the deterioration of QOL. Four studies on brachytherapy found discordant results. One study showed greater QOL impairment in obese patients receiving first-generation hormone therapy than in those with normal or decreased BMI. No study evaluated the QOL of overweight or obese patients receiving other types of systemic treatment. Conclusion Based on the published data, the level of evidence for an association between QOL and overweight or obesity in patients treated for PCa is not high. Prospective cohort studies including this type of patient population are warranted to answer this topical public health issue.

Jean Jaurès (1859-1914) stated that \"Human history is but a ceaseless effort of invention, and perpetual evolution and creation\" [...].Jean Jaurès (1859-1914) stated that \"Human history is but a ceaseless effort of invention, and perpetual evolution and creation\" [...].

Purpose Stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) is on the rise around the world. We aimed to provide recommendations to streamline and assess medical practices in SRT delivery at treatment unit, while complying with legal obligations concerning safety. Materials and methods We conducted an online closed practice survey for heads of radiotherapy departments both nationally in comprehensive cancer centers and university hospitals throughout France, and internationally. The aim was to obtain a better understanding of how the delivery of SRT at treatment unit was managed across different centers according to experience, and to the machines and repositioning techniques used. Radiation oncologists (ROs) were also asked to assess the difficulties of technical implementation in the department, and whether residents were involved in the validation and delivery of SRT. Differences among countries regarding legislation governing the validation of SRT sessions at treatment unit were also collected. A videoconference was then held to draw up proposals for regulatory changes based on the results obtained. Finally, recommendations were drawn up by the steering committee and approved by heads of radiotherapy departments in comprehensive cancer centers and university hospitals throughout France. Results Thirty-five French centers and 15 centers from 14 foreign countries responded to the questionnaire. The most common stereotactic machines were Varian Truebeam STX® (45%) and Cyberknife® (39.2%). The departments had been performing SRT for more than 10 years in 60.5% of cases, and for less than 5 years in 10.1% of cases. A RO validated the SRT fractions at each session in 62.9% of French departments, while in countries outside France RO validation concerned the first fraction only for 35.3% or was performed only in the event of an issue for 23.5%. RO patient positioning validation of SRT fractions were considered as: time-consuming / task-interrupting (80%); having no added value with regards its systematic use (41.8%); and leading to a loss of machine time (33.1%). Most heads of departments would like to see an evolution towards systematic RO validation for the first session, then validation by a radiation therapist (RTT) for all subsequent sessions, leaving open the possibility of RO intervention when required in case of difficulty. We drew up a task delegation procedure to meet these requirements. Conclusion Comparing the French practice to international ones confirmed the need to develop and harmonize recommendations in terms of patient positioning validation at treatment unit. Regulatory changes incorporating a competence transfer to RTTs, particularly after the empowerment process, is key. However, these changes need to be adapted to the experience of each Center and to that of each RTT, as assessed with clearly established criteria and learning curve.

Background The SARS CoV‐2 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems. We compared the cancer stage for new breast cancers (BCs) before and during the pandemic. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on the data warehouse of Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP‐HP). We identified all female patients newly referred with a BC in 2019 and 2020. We assessed the timeline of their care trajectories, initial tumor stage, and treatment received: BC resection, exclusive systemic therapy, exclusive radiation therapy, or exclusive best supportive care (BSC). We calculated patients' 1‐year overall survival (OS) and compared indicators in 2019 and 2020. Results In 2019 and 2020, 2055 and 1988, new BC patients underwent cancer treatment, and during the two lockdowns, the BC diagnoses varied by −18% and by +23% compared to 2019. De novo metastatic tumors (15% and 15%, p = 0.95), pTNM and ypTNM distributions of 1332 cases with upfront resection and of 296 cases with neoadjuvant therapy did not differ (p = 0.37, p = 0.3). The median times from first multidisciplinary meeting and from diagnosis to treatment of 19 days (interquartile 11–39 days) and 35 days (interquartile 22–65 days) did not differ. Access to plastic surgery (15% and 17%, p = 0.08) and to treatment categories did not vary: tumor resection (73% and 72%), exclusive systemic therapy (13% and 14%), exclusive radiation therapy (9% and 9%), exclusive BSC (5% and 5%) (p = 0.8). Among resected patients, the neoadjuvant therapy rate was lower in 2019 (16%) versus 2020 (20%) (p = 0.02). One‐year OS rates were 99.3% versus 98.9% (HR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77–1.2), 72.6% versus 76.6% (HR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.95–1.72), 96.6% versus 97.8% (HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.61–1.94), and 15.5% versus 15.1% (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72–1.37), in the treatment groups. Conclusions Despite a decrease in the number of new BCs, there was no tumor stage shift, and OS did not vary. After a decrease during the first lockdown, the overall number of new breast cancers was comparable in 2020 and 2019. The rate of metastatic stages was similar: 14.8% de novo metastatic tumors in 2020 versus 15.3% in 2019 (p = 0.95). There was no local stage shift: pTNM and ypTNM distributions were stable across 1628 resected cases (p > 0.3). Access to curative and palliative treatments including plastic surgery (17% and 15%) remained stable (p = 0.8). No significant variations in delays of initial care management and patients' overall survival.

BackgroundTargeting immune checkpoints that inhibit antitumor immune responses has emerged as a powerful new approach to treat cancer. We recently showed that blocking the tumor necrosis factor receptor-type 2 (TNFR2) pathway induces the complete loss of the protective function of regulatory T cells (Tregs) in a model of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prevention that relies on Treg-based cell therapy. Here, we tested the possibility of amplifying the antitumor response by targeting TNFR2 in a model of tumor relapse following hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, a clinical situation for which the need for efficient therapeutic options is still unmet.MethodWe developed appropriate experimental conditions that mimic patients that relapsed from their initial hematological malignancy after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. This consisted of defining in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation models developed in mice, the maximum number of required tumor cells and T cells to infuse into recipient mice to develop a model of tumor relapse without inducing GVHD. We next evaluated whether anti-TNFR2 treatment could trigger alloreactivity and consequently antitumor immune response. In parallel, we also studied the differential expression of TNFR2 on T cells including Treg from patients in post-transplant leukemia relapse and in patients developing GVHD.ResultsUsing experimental conditions in which neither donor T cells nor TNFR2-blocking antibody per se have any effect on tumor relapse, we observed that the coadministration of a suboptimal number of T cells and an anti-TNFR2 treatment can trigger alloreactivity and subsequently induce a significant antitumor effect. This was associated with a reduced percentage of activated CD4+ and CD8+ Tregs. Importantly, human Tregs over-expressed TNFR2 relative to conventional T cells in healthy donors and in patients experiencing leukemia relapse or cortico-resistant GVHD after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.ConclusionsThese results highlight TNFR2 as a new target molecule for the development of immunotherapies to treat blood malignancy relapse, used either directly in grafted patients or to enhance donor lymphocyte infusion strategies. More widely, they open the door for new perspectives to amplify antitumor responses against solid cancers by directly targeting Tregs through their TNFR2 expression.

Letrozole radiosensitises breast cancer cells in vitro. In clinical settings, no data exist for the combination of letrozole and radiotherapy. We assessed concurrent and sequential radiotherapy and letrozole in the adjuvant setting. This phase 2 randomised trial was undertaken in two centres in France and one in Switzerland between Jan 12, 2005, and Feb 21, 2007. 150 postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned after conserving surgery to either concurrent radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75) or sequential radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75). Randomisation was open label with a minimisation technique, stratified by investigational centres, chemotherapy (yes vs no), radiation boost (yes vs no), and value of radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (≤16% vs >16%). Whole breast was irradiated to a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. In the case of supraclavicular and internal mammary node irradiation, the dose was 44–50 Gy. Letrozole was administered orally once daily at a dose of 2·5 mg for 5 years (beginning 3 weeks pre-radiotherapy in the concomitant group, and 3 weeks post-radiotherapy in the sequential group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of acute (during and within 6 weeks of radiotherapy) and late (within 2 years) radiation-induced grade 2 or worse toxic effects of the skin. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00208273. All patients were analysed apart from one in the concurrent group who withdrew consent before any treatment. During radiotherapy and within the first 12 weeks after radiotherapy, 31 patients in the concurrent group and 31 in the sequential group had any grade 2 or worse skin-related toxicity. The most common skin-related adverse event was dermatitis: four patients in the concurrent group and six in the sequential group had grade 3 acute skin dermatitis during radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 26 months (range 3–40), two patients in each group had grade 2 or worse late effects (both radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis). Letrozole can be safely delivered shortly after surgery and concomitantly with radiotherapy. Long-term follow-up is needed to investigate cardiac side-effects and cancer-specific outcomes. Novartis Oncology France.

Radiotherapy can diminish quality of life (QoL) for prostate cancer patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of radiotherapy on QoL in men aged 75 years or older treated with radiotherapy for a localized prostate cancer, and to identify predictors of reduced QoL. We prospectively administered a battery of geriatric (MNA, GDS, Get up and Go Test, CIRS-G, ADL, IADL, MMSE), toxicity (IPSS; IIEF 5), and QoL (QLQ C30) screening tests in 100 elderly patients before and two months after prostate cancer radiotherapy (NCT 02876237). Patients ≥ 75 years undergoing radiotherapy with a curative intent for localized prostate cancer with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADL) were eligible for study inclusion. Correlations between patient-assessed QoL and tumor characteristics, radiotherapy treatment or CGA parameters were sought using the Fisher or the Mann and Whitney tests. Changes in QoL parameters over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. At study entry, scores for IADL impairments were present in 51%, reduced autonomy in activities of daily living in 16%, cognitive impairment found in 20%, depression-related symptoms in 31%, and 66% of patients had significant co-morbidities. Eight percent were judged to be at risk of fall and 2% were found to be undernourished. Severely impaired (IPSS ≥ 20) urinary function was observed in 11.2% and 13.5% of patients before and two months after completion of radiotherapy respectively. Significantly decreased QoL (> 20 points) at two months after treatment was found in 13% of patients and a moderate but clinically relevant reduction (10 to 20 points) in 17% of patients. No tumor characteristic, treatment, or oncogeriatric parameter was predictive of reduced QoL following prostate cancer radiotherapy. Despite sometimes markedly diminished oncogeriatric parameters, prostate cancer radiotherapy was generally well tolerated in these elderly patients. We found no predictive factor to determine which patients would experience impaired quality of life following radiotherapy.