Explore the vast range of titles available.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with blockade of the PD-1 pathway may enhance immune-mediated tumor control through increased phagocytosis, cell death, and antigen presentation. The NiCOL phase 1 trial (NCT03298893) is designed to determine the safety/tolerance profile and the recommended phase-II dose of nivolumab with and following concurrent CRT in 16 women with locally advanced cervical cancer. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), disease free survival, and immune correlates of response. Three patients experience grade 3 dose-limiting toxicities. The pre-specified endpoints are met, and overall response rate is 93.8% [95%CI: 69.8–99.8%] with a 2-year PFS of 75% [95% CI: 56.5–99.5%]. Compared to patients with progressive disease (PD), progression-free (PF) subjects show a brisker stromal immune infiltrate, higher proximity of tumor-infiltrating CD3 + T cells to PD-L1 + tumor cells and of FOXP3 + T cells to proliferating CD11c + myeloid cells. PF show higher baseline levels of PD-1 and ICOS-L on tumor-infiltrating EMRA CD4 + T cells and tumor-associated macrophages, respectively; PD instead, display enhanced PD-L1 expression on TAMs, higher peripheral frequencies of proliferating Tregs at baseline and higher PD-1 levels at week 6 post-treatment initiation on CD4 and CD8 T cell subsets. Concomitant nivolumab plus definitive CRT is safe and associated with encouraging PFS rates. Further validation in the subset of locally advanced cervical cancer displaying pre-existing, adaptive immune activation is warranted. A combination of chemoradiotherapy followed by brachytherapy is recommended for patients with locally-advanced cervical cancer (LACC), however there is still a high risk of disease recurrence. Here the authors report clinical outcomes and immunologic correlates of a clinical trial of the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab in combination with chemoradiotherapy in LACC patients.

We compared two intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques for left-sided breast treatment, involving lymph node irradiation including the internal mammary chain. Inverse planned arc-therapy (VMAT) was compared with a forward-planned multi-segment technique with a mono-isocenter (MONOISO). Ten files were planned per technique, delivering a 50-Gy dose to the breast and 46.95 Gy to nodes, within 25 fractions. Comparative endpoints were planning target volume (PTV) coverage, dose to surrounding structures, and treatment delivery time. PTV coverage, homogeneity and conformality were better for two arc VMAT plans; V95% PTV-T was 96% for VMAT vs 89.2% for MONOISO. Homogeneity index (HI) PTV-T was 0.1 and HI PTV-N was 0.1 for VMAT vs 0.6 and 0.5 for MONOISO. Treatment delivery time was reduced by a factor of two using VMAT relative to MONOISO (84 s vs 180 s). High doses to organs at risk were reduced (V30 left lung = 14% using VMAT vs 24.4% with MONOISO; dose to 2% of the volume (D2%) heart = 26.1 Gy vs 32 Gy), especially to the left coronary artery (LCA) (D2% LCA = 34.4 Gy vs 40.3 Gy). However, VMAT delivered low doses to a larger volume, including contralateral organs (mean dose [Dmean] right lung = 4 Gy and Dmean right breast = 3.2 Gy). These were better protected using MONOISO plans (Dmean right lung = 0.8 Gy and Dmean right breast = 0.4 Gy). VMAT improved PTV coverage and dose homogeneity, but clinical benefits remain unclear. Decreased dose exposure to the LCA may be clinically relevant. VMAT could be used for complex treatments that are difficult with conventional techniques. Patient age should be considered because of uncertainties concerning secondary malignancies.

Background: To analyze the outcomes of patients with brain metastases (BM) from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy (IT) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and to study the impact of the sequence between the two modalities. Methods: The authors reviewed the records of 51 patients with 84 BM from NSCLC treated at Institut Curie with IT and SRT. BM were categorized into three groups: ‘SRT before IT’, ‘concurrent SRT and IT’, and ‘SRT after IT.’ Regional progression-free interval (R-PFI) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: After a median follow-up from SRT of 22.5 months (2.7–47.3), the 1-year and 2-year OS were 69.7% (95%CI [58.0–83.8]) and 44.0% [30.6–63.2], respectively. Concerning distant intracranial control, the 1-year and 2-year R-PFI were 40.1% [30.1–53.3] and 35.2% [25.1–49.4], respectively. Moreover, one-year R-PFI in ‘SRT before IT’, ‘concurrent SRT and IT’, and ‘SRT after IT’ groups were 24.1%, 49.6%, and 34.2%, respectively (p = 0.094). The type of therapeutic sequence did not appear to impact the risk of brain necrosis. Conclusions: The concurrent administration of SRT and IT appeared to offer the best locoregional control, without increasing the risk of toxicity, compared to patients treated with SRT before or after IT.

Background Cancer patients have been reported to be at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and deaths. We report the characteristics and outcome of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during breast cancer treatment at Institut Curie hospitals (ICH, Paris area, France). Methods An IRB-approved prospective registry was set up at ICH on March 13, 2020, for all breast cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms or radiologic signs. Registered data included patient history, tumor characteristics and treatments, COVID-19 symptoms, radiological features, and outcome. Data extraction was done on April 25, 2020. COVID-19 patients were defined as those with either a positive RNA test or typical, newly appeared lung CT scan abnormalities. Results Among 15,600 patients actively treated for early or metastatic breast cancer during the last 4 months at ICH, 76 patients with suspected COVID-19 infection were included in the registry and followed. Fifty-nine of these patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on viral RNA testing ( N  = 41) or typical radiologic signs: 37/59 (63%) COVID-19 patients were treated for metastatic breast cancer, and 13/59 (22%) of them were taking corticosteroids daily. Common clinical features mostly consisted of fever and/or cough, while ground-glass opacities were the most common radiologic sign at diagnosis. We found no association between prior radiation therapy fields or extent of radiation therapy sequelae and extent of COVID-19 lung lesions. Twenty-eight of these 59 patients (47%) were hospitalized, and 6 (10%) were transferred to an intensive care unit. At the time of analysis, 45/59 (76%) patients were recovering or had been cured, 10/59 (17%) were still followed, and 4/59 (7%) had died from COVID-19. All 4 patients who died had significant non-cancer comorbidities. In univariate analysis, hypertension and age (> 70) were the two factors associated with a higher risk of intensive care unit admission and/or death. Conclusions This prospective registry analysis suggests that the COVID-19 mortality rate in breast cancer patients depends more on comorbidities than prior radiation therapy or current anti-cancer treatment. Special attention must be paid to comorbidities when estimating the risk of severe COVID-19 in breast cancer patients.

Background We wished to estimate the proportion of patients with breast cancer eligible for an exclusive targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) and to evaluate their survival without local recurrence. Methods We undertook a retrospective study examining two cohorts. The first cohort was multicentric (G3S) and contained 7580 patients. The second cohort was monocentric (cohort 2) comprising 4445 patients. All patients underwent conservative surgery followed by external radiotherapy for invasive breast cancer (T0–T3, N0–N1) between 1980 and 2005. Within each cohort, two groups were isolated according to the inclusion criteria of the TARGIT A study (T group) and RIOP trial (R group). In the multicentric cohort (G3S) eligible patients for TARGIT A and RIOP trials were T1E and R1E subgroups, respectively. In cohort number 2, the corresponding subgroups were T2E and R2E. Similarly, non-eligible patients were T1nE, R1nE and T2nE, and R2nE. The eligible groups in the TARGIT A study that were not eligible in the RIOP trial (TE–RE) were also studied. The proportion of patients eligible for TARGIT was calculated according to the criteria of each study. A comparison was made of the 5-year survival without local or locoregional recurrence between the TE versus TnE, RE versus RnE, and RE versus (TE–RE) groups. Results In G3S and cohort 2, the proportion of patients eligible for TARGIT was, respectively, 53.2% and 33.9% according the criteria of the TARGIT A study, and 21% and 8% according the criteria of the RIOP trial. Survival without five-year locoregional recurrence was significantly different between T1E and T1nE groups (97.6% versus 97% [log rank =0.009]), R1E and R1nE groups (98% versus 97.1% [log rank =0.011]), T2E and T2nE groups (96.6% versus 93.1% [log rank <0. 0001]) and R2E and R2nE groups (98.6% versus 94% [log rank =0.001]). In both cohorts, no significant difference was found between RE and (TE–RE) groups. Conclusions Almost 50% of T0-2 N0 patients could be eligible for TARGIT.

Background To estimate the proportion of elderly patients (>70 years) with breast cancer eligible for an Exclusive IntraOperative RadioTherapy (E-IORT) and to evaluate their local recurrence-free survival rate. Methods This retrospective study examining two cohorts focuses on patients over 70 years old: a multi-centric cohort of 1411 elderly patients and a mono-centric cohort of 592 elderly patients. All patients underwent conservative surgery followed by external radiotherapy for T0-T3 N0-N1 invasive breast cancer, between 1980 and 2008. Results Within each cohort two groups were identified according to the inclusion criteria of the RIOP trial (R group) and TARGIT E study (T group). Each group was divided into two sub-groups, patients eligible (E) or non-eligible (nE) for IORT. The population of patients that were eligible in the TARGIT E study but not in the RIOP trial were also studied in both cohorts. The proportion of patients eligible for IORT was calculated, according to the eligibility criteria of each study. A comparison of the 5-year local or locoregional recurrence-free survival rate between eligible vs non-eligible patients was made. In both cohorts, the proportion of patients eligible according to the RIOP trial’s eligibility criteria was 35.4 and 19.3%, and according to the TARGIT E study criteria was 60.9 and 45.3%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival rate was not significantly different between RE and RnE groups, TE and TnE groups. In both cohorts RE and (TE-RE) groups were not significantly different. Conclusions Our results encourage further necessary studies to define and to extend the eligibility criteria for per operative exclusive radiotherapy.