140 Background: ADT is standard treatment for metastatic PCa. Recently, the E3805 trial reported a survival benefit for (ADT+D) in high volume disease (HVD) patients, whereas the GETUG-15 trial did not demonstrate a survival improvement among a less selected group of patients (pts) with hormone-naïve metastatic PCa. We report an updated analysis of overall survival (OS) of the GETUG 15 trial and aligned the definition of HVD and low volume disease (LVD) subgroups. Methods: Long-termOS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population (n=385 pts). Additionally, we retrospectively assessed the tumor volume as defined per E3805criteria in all patients enrolled in GETUG 15. Results: See Table. With a median follow-up of 82.9 months (95%CI [80.5-84.3]) (vs 50 months (95%CI [80.5-84.3] in the original analysis), 212 patients (55%) have died. The median OS is 46.5 [39.1-60.6] and 60.9 months [46.1-71.4] in the ADT and in the ADT + D arms, respectively (HR: 0.9 [95%CI: 0.7-1.2]). In HVD patients (n=183, 47.5%), median OS rates were 35.1 months [29.9-44.2] in the ADT alone arm and 39 months [28-52.6] in the ADT+D arm (HR: 0.8 [0.6-1.2]). Conclusions: With longer follow-up, the addition of docetaxel to ADT did not significantly improve OS in patients with hormone-naïve metastatic prostate cancer. In the retrospective analysis using aligned definition of volume of metastasis as E3805, the HVD outcomes were similar to E3805 for ADT alone and there was a non-significant 4 months increase in OS with ADT+D, in this underpowered subset. Clinical trial information: 00104715. [Table: see text]

BackgroundThree randomized trials have concluded at non inferiority of omission of complementary axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) for patients with involved sentinel node (SN). However, we can outline strong limitations of these trials to validate this attitude with a high scientific level. We designed the SERC randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717131) to compare outcomes in patients with SN involvement treated with ALND or no further axillary treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze results of the first 1000 patients included.MethodsSERC trial is a multicenter non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with adjuvant chemotherapy administration and non-sentinel node (NSN) involvement.ResultsOf the 963 patients included in the analysis set, 478 were randomized to receive cALND and 485 SLNB alone. All patient demographics and tumor characteristics were balanced between the two arms. SN ITC was present in 6.3% patients (57/903), micro metastases in 33.0% (298), macro metastases in 60.7% (548) and 289 (34.2%) were non eligible to Z0011 trial criteria.Whole breast or chest wall irradiation was delivered in 95.9% (896/934) of patients, adjuvant chemotherapy in 69.5% (644/926), endocrine therapy in 89.6% (673/751) and the proportions were similar in the two arms. The overall rate of positive NSN was 19% (84/442) for patients with cALND. Crude rates of positive NSN according to SN status were 4.5% for ITC (1/22), 9.5% for micro metastases (13/137), 23.9% for macro metastases (61/255) and were respectively 29.36% (64/218), 9.33% (7/75) and 7.94% (10/126) when chemotherapy was administered after cALND, before cALND and for patients without chemotherapy.ConclusionThe main objective of SERC trial is to demonstrate non inferiority of cALND omission. A strong interaction between timing of cALND and chemotherapy with positive NSN rate was observed.Trial registrationThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717131 October 19, 2012.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5053-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPatients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery for advanced ovarian cancer may have impaired functional capacity, nutritional status, and emotional well-being.Primary objective(s)TRAINING-01 aims to determine if a connected pre-habilitation program during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients treated for an advanced ovarian cancer will improve physical capacity before major abdomino-pelvic surgery.Study hypothesisA pre-habilitation program during neoadjuvant chemotherapy will bring a fitter patient to surgery and will decrease treatment morbidity and improve oncological outcomes.Trial designThis study is a prospective, multi-center, phase III study. The pre-habilitation program consists of providing multi-dimensional support during neoadjuvant chemotherapy using connected devices. The control group will receive usual care.Major inclusion/exclusion criteriaEligible patients will be women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III–IV advanced ovarian cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients must be able to perform a cardiopulmonary exercise test.Primary endpoint(s)The primary endpoint will be the comparison of the variation in maximum oxygen uptake (VO2 max) between baseline and surgery in the pre-habilitation group and control groups.Sample size136 patients (68 per arm) will be recruited to demonstrate a medium standardized effect d=0.5 in the variations of VO2 max between baseline and surgery.Estimated dates for completing accrual and presenting resultsThe duration of the study includes 24 months of recruitment and 5 years of follow up. We anticipate reporting primary endpoint results in 2024.Trial registrationTRAINING-01-IPC 2018-039 (NCT04451369).

This French study reports the 5-year results of partial-breast irradiation using intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) with 50 kV x-rays, in select early breast cancer patients. We report a retrospective analysis of 676 consecutive early breast cancer patients treated between November 2011 and December 2015 by partial-breast irradiation using the INTRABEAM ® system. Patients were highly selected based on the ASTRO and GEC-ESTRO criteria and underwent breast-conservative surgery and IORT, completed with additional whole-breast irradiation (WBI) when unexpected unfavorable prognostic factors were found at the final pathology report. Patients' outcomes relative to local and distant control, overall and breast cancer-specific survival, and toxicity are presented, as well as rates of additional WBI. Additional WBI was mandatory in one third of patients (31%), mainly due to lymph node involvement and extensive intraductal component. With a median follow-up time of 54 months,

Background: Current toxicity evaluation is primarily focused on high-grade adverse events (AEs) reported by clinicians. However, the cumulative effect of multiple lower-grade AEs may also impact patients' quality of life (QoL). Further, patient-reported toxicity may be more representative of patients' treatment experiences. This study aimed to determine whether cumulative toxicity comprising all-grade AEs is more associated with QoL than cumulative toxicity comprising high-grade AEs only, and whether patient-reported cumulative toxicity is more associated with QoL than clinician-reported cumulative toxicity. Methods: Patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer participating in the phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial completed questionnaires on AEs (at 3 and 6 months) and QoL (at baseline and 3 and 6 months). Clinicians reported AEs during clinical visits. Cumulative toxicity scores were calculated for clinicians and patients in 3 ways: total number of high-grade AEs, total number of all-grade AEs, and total number of all AEs multiplied by their grade (severity score). Relationships between cumulative toxicity scores and QoL were studied using longitudinal regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (β) are reported. Results: Of 385 patients, 184 with complete QoL and toxicity data were included. Clinician-reported all-grade AEs (B, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.3 to -1.1; P<.01) and severity score (B, -1.4; 95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7; P<.01) were associated with deteriorated physical QoL, whereas the total number of high-grade AEs was not. All patient-reported scores were significantly (P<.01 for all) associated with deteriorated physical and global QoL. Standardized regression coefficients indicated that patient-reported toxicity scores were more associated with QoL outcomes than clinician-reported scores, with the strongest association found for the all-grade AEs and severity cumulative toxicity scores. Conclusions: Patient-and clinician-based cumulative toxicity scores comprising all-grade AEs better reflect impact on patient QoL than toxicity scores comprising high-grade AEs only. To assess the effect of toxicity on QoL, patient-reported cumulative toxicity scores are preferred.