No abstract

Purpose Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

Any registered clinical trial number should be indicated after the abstract.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has a significant clinical relevance of being associated with a shorter median time to relapse and death and does not respond to endocrine therapy or other available targeted agents. Increased aggressiveness of this tumor, as well as resistance to standard drug therapies, may be associated with the presence of stem cell populations within the tumor. Several stemness markers have been described for the various histological subtypes of breast cancer, such as CD44, CD24, CD133, ALDH1, and ABCG2. The role of these markers in breast cancer is not clear yet and above all there are conflicting opinions about their real prognostic value. To investigate the role of CSCs markers in TNBC cancerogenesis and tumor progression, we selected 160 TNBCs samples on which we detected protein expression of CD44, CD24, CD133, ALDH1, and ABCG2 by immunohistochemistry. Our results highlighted a real prognostic role only for CD44 in TNBCs. All other CSCs markers do not appear to be related to the survival of TNBC patients. In conclusion, despite the fact that the presence of the cancer stem cells in the tumor provides important information on its potential aggressiveness, today their detection by immunohistochemistry is not sufficient to confirm their role in carcinogenesis, because specific markers probably are not yet identified.

Deregulation of cell cycle, via cyclin D/CDK/pRb pathway, is frequently observed in breast cancer lending support to the development of drugs targeting the cell cycle control machinery, like the inhibitors of the cycline-dependent kinases (CDK) 4 and 6. Up to now, three CDK4/6 inhibitors have been approved by FDA for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. These agents have been effective in improving the clinical outcomes, but the development of intrinsic or acquired resistance can limit the efficacy of these treatments. Clinical and translational research is now focused on investigation of the mechanism of sensitivity/resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition and novel therapeutic strategies aimed to improve clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the available knowledge regarding CDK4/6 inhibitor, the discovery of new biomarkers of response, and the biological rationale for new combination strategies of treatment.

The introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) represents the most relevant advance in the management of hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer over the last few years. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is aimed to better characterize the efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors in some relevant subgroups and to test heterogeneity between different compounds with a particular focus on their ability to improve overall survival (OS). Pooled estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) were computed for progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and objective response rate (ORR) analysis in predefined subgroups to better understand treatment effect concerning specific patients’ characteristics. To estimate the absolute benefit in terms of PFS, pooled survival curves were generated by pooling the data of all trials. A total of eight RCTs were included. Adding a CDK4/6 inhibitor to ET is beneficial in terms of PFS, irrespective of the presence or not of visceral metastases, the number of metastatic sites, and the length of the treatment-free interval (TFI). The addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors produces a significant OS improvement, both in aromatase inhibitor (AI)-sensitive (HR 0.75, 95% CI) and AI-resistant patients (HR 0.77, 95% CI [0.67–0.89]). Pooled data from each single drug show that palbociclib remains the only class member not showing a statistically significant HR for OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI [0.68–1.02]).

No abstract

PURPOSE We compared the endocrine effects of 6 and 12 months of adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with hormone-responsive early breast cancer within an ongoing phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen, letrozole, or letrozole plus zoledronic acid. Serum values of estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone-sulphate (DHEA-S), progesterone, and cortisol were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. For each hormone, changes from baseline at 6 and 12 months were compared between treatment groups, and differences over time for each group were analyzed. Results Hormonal data were available for 139 postmenopausal patients with a median age of 62 years, with 43 patients assigned to tamoxifen and 96 patients assigned to letrozole alone or combined with zoledronic acid. Baseline values were similar between the two groups for all hormones. Many significant changes were observed between drugs and for each drug over time. Namely, three hormones seemed significantly affected by one drug only: estradiol that decreased and progesterone that increased with letrozole and cortisol that increased with tamoxifen. Both drugs affected FSH (decreasing with tamoxifen and slightly increasing with letrozole), LH (decreasing more with tamoxifen than with letrozole), testosterone (slightly increasing with letrozole but not enough to differ from tamoxifen), and DHEA-S (increasing with both drugs but not differently between them). Zoledronic acid did not have significant impact on hormonal levels. CONCLUSION Adjuvant letrozole and tamoxifen result in significantly distinct endocrine effects. Such differences can explain the higher efficacy of letrozole as compared with tamoxifen.