Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction The 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test, (Genomic Health, Redwood City CA) has not been formally evaluated in an older cohort with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC) in term of physicians’ treatment decisions. We determine the utility of Recurrence Score® (RS) result on adjuvant therapy prescription in elderly patients with resected early BC. Material and methods PONDx was a multicenter, prospective, observational study, and which investigated the real-life use of the Oncotype DX® test by physicians treating early BC patients in clinical practice. Results Data from the elderly extracted from 1724 BC patients who underwent Oncotype DX testing were available from 27 reference centers located in 6 regions of Italy (Lombardia, Lazio, Emilia Romagna, Campania, Abruzzo, and Marche). A total of 230 patients (13% of the total population) aged > 70 years were analyzed. The study primarily evaluated the impact of the Oncotype DX test on adjuvant treatment decisions. Physicians chosen chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy in 36% of elderly patients and 46% of those 50–70 years before the Oncotype DX test. After knowing the RS data, these rates fell to 23 and 33% (38 and 28% relative reduction, respectively). Conclusions 21-gene test may be helpful even in a relatively low-risk group as elderly patients and may avoid the toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy in a significant amount. If the Oncotype DX test is currently adopted on a large scale among the elderly and may impact the general prognosis of elderly BC patients, it is challenging and still unproven.

ObjectiveThe preferred neoadjuvant treatment for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is still matter of debate. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the different impact of neoadjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CTRT) versus chemotherapy (CT) alone.MethodsA comprehensive search was performed in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30th June 2018. Studies comparing survival of patients who underwent CTRT or CT alone before surgery for GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. Hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) was extracted, and a random-effects model was used for pooled analysis. Median OS, 5-year OS, complete pathologic response (pCR), locoregional and distant failure rates were also calculated.Results22 studies including 18,260 patients were considered for the final analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that combined CTRT do not significantly reduce the risk of death (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84–1.07; P = 0.41) but has a positive impact on the risk of relapse (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.97; P = 0.01) compared to CT alone. Addition of RT to CT alone significantly increased the odds of pCR by 2.8 (95% CI 2.27–3.47; P < 0.001) and reduced the risk of locoregional failure (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.39–0.91; P = 0.01) but not the risk of distant metastases (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59–1.11; P = 0.19).ConclusionsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing neoadjuvant CTRT with CT for adenocarcinoma of GEJ, we found no difference in terms of median OS, despite a higher pCR rate and a reduced risk of locoregional recurrences for the combined approach. Further studies, preferably large randomized clinical trials, are needed to confirm these results.

Introduction The incidence of gastric cancer (GC) arising in the upper third of the stomach, including the cardia or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), has increased in the last decades due to established etiological risk factors such as diet, obesity, and gastroesophageal reflux. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic role of site of origin in patients with proximal versus distal GC. Material and Methods We conducted a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LILACS, and CINAHL databases from inception to September 2016. Studies reporting data on the independent prognostic effect of site in GC and comparing overall survival (OS) in proximal versus distal tumors were eligible. Data were pooled using OS hazard ratios (HRs) of proximal versus distal GC according to fixed- or random-effect model. Results Overall, 50 studies including 128,268 patients were identified. Cancers located in the upper third of the stomach were associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–1.46, p  < 0.001, I 2  = 91%). After exclusion of GEJ tumors, prognosis was worse for pure cardia location (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22–1.58, p  < 0.001, I 2  = 61%) compared with proximal or upper-third GCs without a specific subsite definition (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01–1.37, p   =  0.04, I 2  = 91%). Conclusions Location of the primary GC in the upper third of the stomach, particularly at the GEJ/cardia, should be acknowledged as an important prognostic factor. Based on these results, more effective treatment strategies for proximal GCs are needed.

Background Current guidelines support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CTRT) and surgery to treat rectal cancer, although clinical trials have provided little evidence that it is effective. We performed a systematic review of published studies to assess whether adjuvant CT improves outcome after neoadjuvant therapy and radical surgery in cases of rectal cancer. Materials and methods We conducted an electronic database search for randomized and nonrandomized studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. We then carried out a meta-analysis by using the fixed- or random-effects models. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS) reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one pooled analysis of five RCTs and 10 retrospective studies that included a total of 5,457 patients matched our selection criteria. Meta-analysis showed that for rectal cancer patients treated with surgery and neoadjuvant CTRT, adjuvant CT improves 5-year OS (OR, 0.64; 95 % CI, 0.46–0.88; p  = 0.006) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (OR, 0.71; 95 % CI, 0.6–0.83; p  < 0.0001). The 5-year OS benefit was significantly larger in downstaged patients and in retrospective series. A better DFS was instead noted in all studies due to a reduced risk of local relapse. Conclusions Amongst rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgery, adjuvant CT seems to improve the 5-year DFS and OS rates and may be discussed with patients. However, the benefit derives mainly from retrospective evidence.

Platinum agents such as cisplatin and carboplatin are DNA-damaging agents with activity in breast cancer (BC), particularly in the triple negative (TN) subgroup. The utility of platinum agents, in addition to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), is controversial. To assess the activity of platinum agents in patients with TNBC treated with NAC, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify studies that investigated platinum-based NAC in patients with TNBC. Random effect models were adopted to estimate the summary risk ratio (RR), and the publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger’s regression asymmetry test. The primary endpoints were the pooled rate of the pathologic complete response (pCR) and the RR to obtain a pCR in patients treated versus not treated with NAC containing platinum agents. 28 studies were included (six randomized controlled trials and 22 retrospective or prospective studies) for a total of 1,598 TNBC patients. Overall, the pooled rate of pCR in patients treated with platinum-based NAC was 45 %. In randomized trials, NAC containing cisplatin or carboplatin significantly increased the rate of pCR compared with nonplatinum agents (RR = 1.45, 95 % CI 1.25–1.68; P  < 0.0001). Compared with non-TN, TNBCs were associated with a threefold increase in the pCR rate when treated with platinum-based NAC (RR 3.32, 95 % CI 2.39–4.61; P  < 0.0001). In conclusion, pCR rates increase significantly with the addition of cisplatin or carboplatin in TNBC compared with NAC containing no platinum drugs. TN status is a predictor of benefit from platinum-based NAC.

Clinical trials are needed to assess the clinical benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy, since these patients are at an increased risk of developing a thromboembolism. We did a trial to assess the clinical benefit of the low-molecular-weight heparin nadroparin for the prophylaxis of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer. Between October, 2003, and May, 2007, ambulatory patients with lung, gastrointestinal, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, or head and neck cancer were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive subcutaneous injections of nadroparin (3800 IU anti-Xa once a day, n=779) or placebo (n=387), in a 2:1 ratio. Study treatment was given for the duration of chemotherapy up to a maximum of 4 months. The primary study outcome was the composite of symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolic events, as assessed by an independent adjudication committee. All randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the efficacy and safety analyses (modified intention-to-treat population). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 00951574. 1150 patients were included in the primary efficacy and safety analyses: 769 patients in the nadroparin group and 381 patients in the placebo group. 15 (2·0%) of 769 patients treated with nadroparin and 15 (3·9%) of 381 patients treated with placebo had a thromboembolic event (single-sided p=0·02). Five (0·7%) of 769 patients in the nadroparin group and no patients in the placebo group had a major bleeding event (two-sided p=0·18). The incidences of minor bleeding were 7·4% (57 of 769) with nadroparin and 7·9% (30 of 381) with placebo. There were 121 (15·7%) serious adverse events in the nadroparin goup and 67 (17·6%) serious adverse events in the placebo group. Nadroparin reduces the incidence of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with metastatic or locally advanced cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. Future studies should focus on patients who are at a high risk for thromboembolic events. Italfarmaco SpA, Milan, Italy.

Patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearranged (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a higher risk of developing brain metastases (BMs) than patients with other NSCLC sub-types. ALK inhibitors have activity in BMs due to ALK+ NSCLC. We performed a systematic review of the literature with the aim of assessing the efficacy of ALK inhibitors on BMs. A systematic search of the literature was performed using the databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS. Relevant publications reporting activity of ALK inhibitors in NSCLC BMs were retrieved. Data were pooled using the number of events/number of evaluable patients according to fixed or random effect models. Intracranial tumour response was assessed through overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR: ORR + stable disease rate), median progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The primary endpoint was intracranial overall response rate (IC ORR). A total of 1,016 patients with BMs from 21 studies were analysed. In patients receiving ALK inhibitors in the first line setting, the pooled IC ORR was 39.17% (95%CI 13.1-65.2%), while the pooled IC ORR observed in further lines was 44.2% (95%CI 33.3-55.1%). Intracranial disease control rate (IC DCR) was 70.3% and 78.2% in naïve and pre-treated patients, respectively. Patients who had not received brain radiation attained an IC ORR of 49.0%. Based on these data, ALK inhibitors are effective in both naive and pre-treated patients with similar IC ORR and IC DCR, irrespective of the line of therapy.

Background Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy are at increased risk of thrombosis. Nadroparin has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events (TEs) by about 50% in cancer outpatients receiving chemotherapy. The aims of this retrospective analysis were to evaluate the thromboembolic risk and the benefit of thromboprophylaxis according to type of chemotherapy. Methods Cancer outpatients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of nadroparin or placebo. The incidence of symptomatic TEs was assessed according to the type of chemotherapy. Results were reported as risk ratios with associated 95% CI and two-tailed probability values. Results 769 and 381 patients have been evaluated in the nadroparin and placebo group, respectively. In the absence of thromboprophylaxis, the highest rate of TEs was found in patients receiving gemcitabine- (8.1%) or cisplatin-based chemotherapy (7.0%). The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin increased the risk to 10.2%. Thromboprophylaxis reduced TE risk by 68% in patients receiving gemcitabine; with a further decrease to 78% in those receiving a combination of gemcitabine and platinum. Conclusions This retrospective analysis confirms that patients undergoing chemotherapy including gemcitabine, platinum analogues or their combination are at higher risk of TEs. Our results also suggest that outpatients receiving chemotherapy regimens including these agents might achieve an increased benefit from thromboprophylaxis with nadroparin. Clinical Trial registration number: NCT 00951574

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is frequently used to treat advanced gastric cancer (GC). Although it leads to increased overall survival (OS) when added to single agents or chemotherapy doublets, toxicity is also generally increased. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy with and without cisplatin in patients with advanced GC. Randomised trials that compared first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy with regimens in which cisplatin was replaced by other agents were identified by electronic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed or random effects model. OS, reported as a hazard ratio (HR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), was the primary outcome measure. Fourteen trials (5 phase III and 9 phase II), including 2,981 patients, were identified. Overall, chemotherapy regimens without cisplatin significantly improved OS (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92; p = 0.003), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.90; p = 0.001), and response rate (RR) (OR, 1.25; p = 0.004) when compared to cisplatin-containing regimens. A subgroup analysis according to histology, site of the primary tumour and extent of disease was not possible due to lack of data. Compared with cisplatin-based doublets and triplets, combinations in which cisplatin was replaced by new drugs improved outcome and RRs in randomised trials for advanced GC and therefore should be strongly considered in the metastatic setting. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that we cannot identify a subgroup of patients (according to histology, site of primary tumour or burden of metastatic disease) which could derive greater benefit from cisplatin-free chemotherapy.