Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a multifunctional cytokine produced by macrophages, T cells, B cells, endothelial cells and tumour cells. Interleukin-6 is able to promote tumour growth by upregulating anti-apoptotic and angiogenic proteins in tumour cells. In murine models it has been demonstrated that antibodies against IL-6 diminish tumour growth. Several reports have highlighted the prognostic importance of IL-6 in e.g., prostate and colon cancer. We addressed prospectively the prognostic significance of serum IL-6 (sIL-6), measured at diagnosis of metastasis, in 96 unselected and consecutive patients with progressive metastatic breast cancer before the initiation of systemic therapy. The median sIL-6 value for the breast cancer population was 6.6 ؎ 2.1 pg/ml. Patients with 2 or more metastatic sites had higher sIL-6 values compared to those with only 1 metastatic site (respectively 8.15 ؎ 1.7 pg/ml and 3.06 ؎ 6.6 pg/ml; p < 0.001). Patients with liver metastasis (8.3 ؎ 2.4 pg/ml), with pleural effusions (10.65 ؎ 9.9 pg/ml) and with dominant visceral disease (8.15 ؎ 3.3 pg/ml) had significantly higher values compared to those without liver metastases (4.5 ؎ 3.4 pg/ml; p ‫؍‬ 0.001), without pleural effusions (5.45 ؎ 1.5 pg/ml; p ‫؍‬ 0.0077) and with dominant bone disease (4.5 ؎ 1.4 pg/ml; p ‫؍‬ 0.007) respectively. No correlation between sIL-6 and age, menopausal status, performance status, tumour grade, bodymass index, histology and hormone receptor status was found. Multivariate analysis showed that high levels of serum IL-6 have independent prognostic value. We conclude that circulating IL-6 is associated with worse survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer and is correlated with the extent of disease.

BackgroundMetastases-directed therapy (MDT) with surgery or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is emerging as a new treatment option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients with a limited number of metastases (≤3) at recurrence – so called “oligometastases”. One of the goals of this approach is to delay the start of palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), with its negative impact on quality of life. However, the lack of a control group, selection bias and the use of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy prevent strong conclusions from published studies.The aim of this multicenter randomized phase II trial is to assess the impact of MTD on the start of palliative ADT compared to patients undergoing active surveillance.Methods/DesignPatients with an oligometastatic recurrence, diagnosed on choline PET/CT after local treatment with curative intent, will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio between arm A: active surveillance only and arm B: MTD followed by active surveillance. Patients will be stratified according to the location of metastasis (node vs. bone metastases) and PSA doubling time (≤3 vs. > 3 months). Both surgery and SBRT are allowed as MDT. Active surveillance means 3-monthly PSA testing and re-imaging at PSA progression. The primary endpoint is ADT-free survival. ADT will be started in both arms at time of polymetastatic disease (>3 metastatic lesions), local progression or symptoms. The secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, quality of life, toxicity and prostate-cancer specific survival.DiscussionThis is the first randomized phase 2 trial assessing the possibility of deferring palliative ADT with MDT in oligometastatic PCa recurrence.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01558427

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of a decision aid regarding treatment options for patients with early-stage localized prostate cancer. Methods: 50 patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer received the decision aid and were interviewed twice: before the decision-making consultation with the physicians and before treatment or, in case of watchful waiting, before the follow-up consultation. The physicians (radiation oncologists and urologists) were interviewed after the consultation. Results: The patients became more active partners in the decision-making process: They were better prepared for the consultation, asked more direct information, and were able to make a more deliberative choice. Generally, the use of the decision aid improved the quality of the consultation and resulted in a treatment decision agreed upon by both parties. Sometimes the consultation turned out to be more time-consuming. The decision aid did not only improve the patient-physician interaction but also helped patients to discuss the disease with their partner and family members. Conclusion: The use of the decision aid has a positive impact on the consultation and the decision-making process. The policy of involving patients more actively in the decision process should be further implemented in daily practice.

This hypofractionated IMRT schedule for PC using 25 fractions of 2.64 Gy did not result in severe acute side effects. Until now late urethral, rectal toxicities seemed acceptable as well as failure rates. Detailed analysis of QOL questionnaires resulted in the same conclusion.

No abstract