Fedro Peccatori

Cancer, pregnancy and fertility: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

F. A. Peccatori1, H. A. Azim Jr2, R. Orecchia3, H. J. Hoekstra4, N. Pavlidis5, V. Kesic6 & G. Pentheroudakis5, on behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group* Fertility and Procreation Unit, Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Medicine, BrEAST Data Centre, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Radiotherapy, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia;

Angiogenic growth factors and endostatin in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

A number of clinical studies have demonstrated the prognostic significance of angiogenesis and angiogenic growth factors in solid tumours; however, very little is known about the relevance of these parameters in haematological malignancies. We evaluated circulating levels of angiogenic growth factors and endostatin in 36 non‐Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) patients. Baseline vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels of patients in complete remission (CR) after a median follow‐up of 21 months were significantly lower than those of patients with progressive disease (P = 0.016). Event‐free survival (EFS) rate was significantly higher in patients who had baseline VEGF and basic‐fibroblast growth factor (b.FGF) levels below the median values of 147 and 19.5 pg/ml (P = 0.018 and 0.039 by log‐rank test, respectively). Conversely, the levels of endostatin, angiogenin and leptin were not different in CR patients compared to relapsed patients and did not correlate with EFS. Our data suggest that b‐FGF and, particularly, VEGF might be considered prognostic factors in NHL staging and management.

Cancer and fertility preservation: International recommendations from an expert meeting

In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians.In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of “cancer and fertility preservation”. A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation.Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.

The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists recommendations for the management of young women with breast cancer.

EUSOMA (The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) is committed to writing recommendations on different topics of breast cancer care which can be easily adopted and used by health professionals dedicated to the care of patients with breast cancer in their daily practice. In 2011, EUSOMA identified the management of young women with breast cancer as one of the hot topics for which a consensus among European experts was needed. Therefore, the society recently organised a workshop to define such recommendations. Thirteen experts from the different disciplines met for two days to discuss the topic. This international and multidisciplinary panel thoroughly reviewed the literature in order to prepare evidence-based recommendations. During the meeting, two working groups were set up to discuss in detail diagnosis and loco-regional and systemic treatments, including both group aspects of psychology and sexuality. The conclusions reached by the working groups were then discussed in a plenary session to reach panel consensus. Whenever possible, a measure of the level of evidence (LoE) from 1 (the highest) to 4 (the lowest) degree, based on the methodology proposed by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), was assigned to each recommendation. The present manuscript presents the recommendations of this consensus group for the management of young women with breast cancer in daily clinical practice.

Breast cancer in pregnancy: recommendations of an international consensus meeting.

PURPOSE To provide guidance for clinicians about the diagnosis, staging and treatment of breast cancer occurring during an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy. METHODS An international expert Panel convened to address a series of questions identified by a literature review and personal experience. Issues relating to the diagnosis and management of breast cancer after delivery were outside the scope. RESULTS There is a paucity of large and/or randomized studies. Based on cohort studies, case series and case reports, the recommendations represent the best available evidence, albeit of a lower grade than is optimal. RECOMMENDATIONS In most circumstances, serious consideration should be given to the option of treating breast cancer whilst continuing with the pregnancy. Each woman should ideally be referred to a centre with sufficient expertise, given a clear explanation of treatment options. Most diagnostic and staging examinations can be performed adequately and safely during pregnancy. Treatment should however be adapted to the clinical presentation and the trimester of the pregnancy: surgery can be performed during all trimesters of pregnancy; radiotherapy can be considered during the first and second trimester but should be postponed during the third trimester; and standard chemotherapies can be used during the second and third trimester. Since neonatal morbidity mainly appears to be related to prematurity, delivery should not be induced before 37 weeks, if at all possible. CONCLUSIONS The treatment of breast cancer in pregnancy should be executed by experienced specialists in a multidisciplinary setting and should adhere as closely as possible to standard protocols.

Prognostic Impact of Pregnancy After Breast Cancer According to Estrogen Receptor Status: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

PURPOSE We questioned the impact of pregnancy on disease-free survival (DFS) in women with history of breast cancer (BC) according to estrogen receptor (ER) status. PATIENTS AND METHODS A multicenter, retrospective cohort study in which patients who became pregnant any time after BC were matched (1:3) to patients with BC with similar ER, nodal status, adjuvant therapy, age, and year of diagnosis. To adjust for guaranteed time bias, each nonpregnant patient had to have a disease-free interval at least equal to the time elapsing between BC diagnosis and date of conception of the matched pregnant one. The primary objective was DFS in patients with ER-positive BC. DFS in the ER-negative cohort, whole population, and overall survival (OS) were secondary objectives. Subgroup analyses included DFS according to pregnancy outcome and BC-pregnancy interval. With a two-sided α = 5% and β = 20%, 645 ER-positive patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65. RESULTS A total of 333 pregnant patients and 874 matched nonpregnant patients were analyzed, of whom 686 patients had an ER-positive disease. No difference in DFS was observed between pregnant and nonpregnant patients in the ER-positive (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.24, P = .55) or the ER-negative (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08, P = .12) cohorts. However, the pregnant group had better OS (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97, P = .03), with no interaction according to ER status (P = .11). Pregnancy outcome and BC-pregnancy interval did not seem to impact the risk of relapse. CONCLUSION Pregnancy after ER-positive BC does not seem to reduce the risk of BC recurrence.

Safety of pregnancy following breast cancer diagnosis: A meta-analysis of 14 studies

BACKGROUND Due to the rising trend of delaying pregnancy to later in life, more women are diagnosed with breast cancer before completing their families. Therefore, enquiry into the feasibility and safety of pregnancy following breast cancer diagnosis is on the rise. Available evidence suggests that women with a history of breast cancer are frequently advised against future conception for fear that pregnancy could adversely affect their breast cancer outcome. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to understand the effect of pregnancy on overall survival of women with a history of breast cancer. METHODS Two of the authors independently performed a literature search up to September 2009 with no language restrictions. Eligible studies were published retrospective control-matched, population-based and hospital-based studies that have addressed the impact of pregnancy on the overall survival of women with history of breast cancer. Pooling of data was done using the random effect model. Unpublished statistics from three studies were obtained to perform further subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This included examining the effect of pregnancy according to age at diagnosis, healthy mother effect, type of study, nodal status and other parameters. RESULTS Fourteen studies were included in this meta-analysis (1244 cases and 18,145 controls). Women who got pregnant following breast cancer diagnosis had a 41% reduced risk of death compared to women who did not get pregnant [PRR: 0.59 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-0.70)]. This difference was seen irrespective of the type of the study and particularly in women with history of node-negative disease. In a subgroup analysis, we compared the outcome of women with history of breast cancer who became pregnant to breast cancer patients who did not get pregnant and were known to be free of relapse. In this analysis, we did not find significant differences in survival between either group [PRR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.53-1.35]. CONCLUSIONS This study confirms that pregnancy in women with history of breast cancer is safe and does not compromise their overall survival. Hence, breast cancer survivors should not be denied the opportunity of future conception.

Treatment of the pregnant mother with cancer: a systematic review on the use of cytotoxic, endocrine, targeted agents and immunotherapy during pregnancy. Part I: Solid tumors.

The association of cancer and pregnancy is increasingly encountered nowadays in clinical practice. Due to the relative rarity of the situation, it lacks a systematized approach. Different systemic therapies are used in managing cancer with uncertainty regarding the potential hazards they could pose on the pregnancy and/or the fetus. We have performed a systematic review of literature to identify all reports addressing cancer patients who were exposed to any of the known systemic therapies during the course of the pregnancy. The results were discussed in two parts; part I addresses pregnant patients with solid tumors while part I for those with hematological malignancies. In part I, we identified different solid tumors diagnosed and treated during the course of pregnancy. Breast cancer was the most commonly treated followed by ovarian cancer. Other tumors were treated as well including lung cancer, cervical cancer, sarcoma and melanomas. It is important to acknowledge the intent of therapy (palliative vs. curative) and the patients has to be properly counseled to reach an informed decision. We aim to provide a more robust consensus on how to approach these cases and provide a higher degree of evidence to support the safety of applying certain management strategies over the other.

Second international consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY2)

The 2nd International Consensus Conference for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY2) took place in November 2014, in Dublin, Ireland organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women (BCYW) were updated from BCY1 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines, and areas of research priorities were identified. This manuscript summarizes these international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA).

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure in cancer women: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND The role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian failure (POF) is still controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of GnRHa, given before and during chemotherapy, in the prevention of POF in premenopausal cancer patients. METHODS Studies were retrieved by searching PubMed, Web of Knowledge database and the proceedings of major conferences. We calculated Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for POF from each trial and obtained pooled estimates through the random effects model as suggested by DerSimonian and Laird. RESULTS Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis with 225 events of POF occurring in 765 analyzed patients. The pooled OR estimate indicates a highly significant reduction in the risk of POF (OR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.013) in patients receiving GnRHa. There was statistically significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=55.8%; p=0.012). There was no evidence of publication bias. Subgroups analyses showed that the protective effect of GnRHa against POF was similar in subgroups of patients defined by age and timing of POF assessment, while it was present in breast cancer but unclear in ovarian cancer and lymphoma patients. CONCLUSIONS Our pooled analysis of randomized studies shows that the temporary ovarian suppression induced by GnRHa significantly reduces the risk of chemotherapy-induced POF in young cancer patients.