Ian Kunkler

Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data.

BACKGROUND Traditional cancer-survival analyses provide data on cancer management at the beginning of a study period, and are often not relevant to current practice because they refer to survival of patients treated with older regimens that might no longer be used. Therefore, shortening the delay in providing survival estimates is desirable. Period analysis can estimate cancer survival by the use of recent data. We aimed to apply the period-analysis method to data that were collected by European cancer registries to estimate recent survival by country and cancer site, and to assess survival changes in Europe. We also compared our findings with data on cancer survival in the USA from the US SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) programme. METHODS We analysed survival data for patients diagnosed with cancer in 2000-02, collected from 47 of the European cancer registries participating in the EUROCARE-4 study. 5-year period relative survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was estimated as the product of interval-specific relative survival values of cohorts with different lengths of follow-up. 5-year survival profiles for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 were estimated for the European mean and for five European regions, and findings were compared with US SEER registry data for patients diagnosed in 2000-02. A 5-year survival profile for patients diagnosed in 1991-2002 and a 10-year survival profile for patients diagnosed in 1997-2002 were also estimated by the period method for all malignancies, by geographical area, and by cancer site. FINDINGS For all cancers, age-adjusted 5-year period survival improved for patients diagnosed in 2000-02, especially for patients with colorectal, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancer, Hodgkins disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The European mean age-adjusted 5-year survival calculated by the period method for 2000-02 was high for testicular cancer (97.3% [95% CI 96.4-98.2]), melanoma (86.1% [84.3-88.0]), thyroid cancer (83.2% [80.9-85.6]), Hodgkins disease (81.4% [78.9-84.1]), female breast cancer (79.0% [78.1-80.0]), corpus uteri (78.0% [76.2-79.9]), and prostate cancer (77.5% [76.5-78.6]); and low for stomach cancer (24.9% [23.7-26.2]), chronic myeloid leukaemia (32.2% [29.0-35.7]), acute myeloid leukaemia (14.8% [13.4-16.4]), and lung cancer (10.9% [10.5-11.4]). Survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was generally highest for those in northern European countries and lowest for those in eastern European countries, although, patients in eastern European had the highest improvement in survival for major cancer sites during 1991-2002 (colorectal cancer from 30.3% [28.3-32.5] to 44.7% [42.8-46.7]; breast cancer from 60% [57.2-63.0] to 73.9% [71.7-76.2]; for prostate cancer from 39.5% [35.0-44.6] to 68.0% [64.2-72.1]). For all solid tumours, with the exception of stomach, testicular, and soft-tissue cancers, survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was higher in the US SEER registries than for the European mean. For haematological malignancies, data from US SEER registries and the European mean were comparable in 2000-02, except for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. INTERPRETATION Cancer-service infrastructure, prevention and screening programmes, access to diagnostic and treatment facilities, tumour-site-specific protocols, multidisciplinary management, application of evidence-based clinical guidelines, and recruitment to clinical trials probably account for most of the differences that we noted in outcomes.

Neurocognitive Function and Progression in Patients With Brain Metastases Treated With Whole-Brain Radiation and Motexafin Gadolinium: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE To report the neurocognitive findings in a phase III randomized trial evaluating survival and neurologic and neurocognitive function in patients with brain metastases from solid tumors receiving whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with or without motexafin gadolinium (MGd). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive WBRT 30 Gy in 10 fractions with or without MGd 5 mg/kg/d. Monthly neurocognitive testing for memory, executive function, and fine motor skill was performed. RESULTS Four hundred one patients were enrolled (251 with non-small-cell lung cancer, 75 with breast cancer, and 75 with other cancers); 90.5% patients had impairment of one or more neurocognitive tests at baseline. Neurocognitive test scores of memory, fine motor speed, executive function, and global neurocognitive impairment at baseline were correlated with brain tumor volume and predictive of survival. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment arms in time to neurocognitive progression. Patients with lung cancer (but not other types of cancer) who were treated with MGd tended to have improved memory and executive function (P =.062) and improved neurologic function as assessed by a blinded events review committee (P =.048). CONCLUSION Neurocognitive tests are a relatively sensitive measure of brain functioning; a combination of tumor prognostic variables and brain function assessments seems to predict survival better than tumor variables alone. Although the addition of MGd to WBRT did not produce a significant overall improvement between treatment arms, MGd may improve memory and executive function and prolong time to neurocognitive and neurologic progression in patients with brain metastases from lung cancer.

Breast-Conserving Surgery With or Without Radiotherapy: Pooled-Analysis for Risks of Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence and Mortality

In a recent article in the Journal, Vinh-Hung and Verschraegen (1) provided a valuable pooled analysis of randomized trials of postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery. They reported a small increase in breast cancer mortality and a substantial risk of local recurrence from the omission of breast radiotherapy. These important observations should not be interpreted to imply that all patients require breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery and appropriate systemic therapy. We believe, however, that in contrast to younger patients, there are insufficient data to draw this conclusion in older patients. Indeed, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, in its 2000 consensus statement for breast cancer (2), makes no specific recommendation on adjuvant therapy for patients aged 70 years or older because of the paucity of data for this group of patients. Of the 15 randomized trials assessing the role of breast radiotherapy or its omission included in the pooled analysis by VinhHung (1), only three (Uppsala-Orebro, Tokyo, and the Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB]) included patients over age 70. In this older group of patients, there are competing risks of mortality from predominantly vascular comorbidity. In addition, a body of data from both randomized and nonrandomized trials suggests that the risks of local recurrence decrease with age (3). This observation reflects, in part, the increasing proportion of older patients with good prognostic characteristics. Large, adequately powered trials with older patients are needed to assess the role of breast radiotherapy in local recurrence and breast cancer mortality. The dramatic impact of the competing risks of non– breast cancer mortality in the elderly is shown in the CALGB 9343 trial (4), cited in table 1 of Vinh-Hung and Verschraegen (1), which randomly assigned patients with T1, node-negative, ER-positive tumors to breast radiotherapy or no further treatment after breast-conserving therapy and tamoxifen. Of the 39 deaths among the 647 patients in the trial, only one was due to breast cancer. Ongoing trials, such as the Postoperative Radiotherapy In Minimumrisk Elderly (PRIME) trial (5), are addressing issues of local control, morbidity, and quality of life in older, low-risk patients to establish a firm basis for the selection of patients for radiotherapy in this age group. We feel that until the results of randomized trials focused on evaluating breast radiotherapy in the elderly are available, the role of breast radiotherapy in this age group remains uncertain. For many such women, their informed recruitment into appropriately designed, randomized, controlled trials may be the most ethical way of determining treatment.

Management of elderly patients with breast cancer: updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA)

As the mean age of the global population increases, breast cancer in older individuals will be increasingly encountered in clinical practice. Management decisions should not be based on age alone. Establishing recommendations for management of older individuals with breast cancer is challenging because of very limited level 1 evidence in this heterogeneous population. In 2007, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in elderly individuals. In 2010, a multidisciplinary SIOG and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) task force gathered to expand and update the 2007 recommendations. The recommendations were expanded to include geriatric assessment, competing causes of mortality, ductal carcinoma in situ, drug safety and compliance, patient preferences, barriers to treatment, and male breast cancer. Recommendations were updated for screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy, and metastatic breast cancer.

Management of breast cancer in elderly individuals: recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality in women worldwide. Elderly individuals make up a large part of the breast cancer population, and there are important specific considerations for this population. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology created a task force to assess the available evidence on breast cancer in elderly individuals, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in such individuals. A review of the published work was done with the results of a search on Medline for English-language articles published between 1990 and 2007 and of abstracts from key international conferences. Recommendations are given on the topics of screening, surgery, radiotherapy, (neo)adjuvant hormone treatment and chemotherapy, and metastatic disease. Since large randomised trials in elderly patients with breast cancer are scarce, there is little level I evidence for the treatment of such patients. The available evidence was reviewed and synthesised to provide consensus recommendations regarding the care of breast cancer in older adults.

Rare cancers are not so rare: the rare cancer burden in Europe

PURPOSE Epidemiologic information on rare cancers is scarce. The project Surveillance of Rare Cancers in Europe (RARECARE) provides estimates of the incidence, prevalence and survival of rare cancers in Europe based on a new and comprehensive list of these diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS RARECARE analysed population-based cancer registry (CR) data on European patients diagnosed from 1988 to 2002, with vital status information available up to 31st December 2003 (latest date for which most CRs had verified data). The mean population covered was about 162,000,000. Cancer incidence and survival rates for 1995-2002 and prevalence at 1st January 2003 were estimated. RESULTS Based on the RARECARE definition (incidence <6/100,000/year), the estimated annual incidence rate of all rare cancers in Europe was about 108 per 100,000, corresponding to 541,000 new diagnoses annually or 22% of all cancer diagnoses. Five-year relative survival was on average worse for rare cancers (47%) than common cancers (65%). About 4,300,000 patients are living today in the European Union with a diagnosis of a rare cancer, 24% of the total cancer prevalence. CONCLUSION Our estimates of the rare cancer burden in Europe provide the first indication of the size of the public health problem due to these diseases and constitute a useful base for further research. Centres of excellence for rare cancers or groups of rare cancers could provide the necessary organisational structure and critical mass for carrying out clinical trials and developing alternative approaches to clinical experimentation for these cancers.

Critical research gaps and translational priorities for the successful prevention and treatment of breast cancer

IntroductionBreast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice.MethodsMore than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer ‘stem’ cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account.ResultsThe 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working.ConclusionsWith resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.

Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women aged 65 years or older with early breast cancer (PRIME II): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND For most older women with early breast cancer, standard treatment after breast-conserving surgery is adjuvant whole-breast radiotherapy and adjuvant endocrine treatment. We aimed to assess the effect omission of whole-breast radiotherapy would have on local control in older women at low risk of local recurrence at 5 years. METHODS Between April 16, 2003, and Dec 22, 2009, 1326 women aged 65 years or older with early breast cancer judged low-risk (ie, hormone receptor-positive, axillary node-negative, T1-T2 up to 3 cm at the longest dimension, and clear margins; grade 3 tumour histology or lymphovascular invasion, but not both, were permitted), who had had breast-conserving surgery and were receiving adjuvant endocrine treatment, were recruited into a phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 76 centres in four countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either whole-breast radiotherapy (40-50 Gy in 15-25 fractions) or no radiotherapy by computer-generated permuted block randomisation, stratified by centre, with a block size of four. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. Follow-up continues and will end at the 10-year anniversary of the last randomised patient. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered on ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN95889329. FINDINGS 658 women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery and who were receiving adjuvant endocrine treatment were randomly assigned to receive whole-breast irradiation and 668 were allocated to no further treatment. After median follow-up of 5 years (IQR 3·84-6·05), ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence was 1·3% (95% CI 0·2-2·3; n=5) in women assigned to whole-breast radiotherapy and 4·1% (2·4-5·7; n=26) in those assigned no radiotherapy (p=0·0002). Compared with women allocated to whole-breast radiotherapy, the univariate hazard ratio for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence in women assigned to no radiotherapy was 5·19 (95% CI 1·99-13·52; p=0·0007). No differences in regional recurrence, distant metastases, contralateral breast cancers, or new breast cancers were noted between groups. 5-year overall survival was 93·9% (95% CI 91·8-96·0) in both groups (p=0·34). 89 women died; eight of 49 patients allocated to no radiotherapy and four of 40 assigned to radiotherapy died from breast cancer. INTERPRETATION Postoperative whole-breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant endocrine treatment resulted in a significant but modest reduction in local recurrence for women aged 65 years or older with early breast cancer 5 years after randomisation. However, the 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence is probably low enough for omission of radiotherapy to be considered for some patients. FUNDING Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government), Breast Cancer Institute (Western General Hospital, Edinburgh).

New strategies for targeting the hypoxic tumour microenvironment in breast cancer

Radiation and drug resistance remain major challenges and causes of mortality in the treatment of locally advanced, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Metabolic reprogramming is a recently recognised hallmark of cancer with the hypoxic acidic extracellular environment as a major driver of invasion and metastases. Nearly 40% of all breast cancers and 50% of locally advanced breast cancers are hypoxic and their altered metabolism is strongly linked to resistance to radiotherapy and systemic therapy. The dependence of metabolically adapted breast cancer cells on alterations in cell function presents a wide range of new therapeutic targets such as carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX). This review highlights preclinical approaches to evaluating an array of targets against tumour metabolism in breast cancer and early phase clinical studies on efficacy.

Survival from rare cancer in adults: a population-based study

BACKGROUND Rare cancers are a challenge to clinical practice, and treatment experience, even in major cancer centres to which rare cancers are usually referred, is often limited. We aimed to study the epidemiology of rare cancers in a large population of several countries. METHODS We analysed survival by age, sex, subsite, and morphology in 57,144 adults with 14 selected rare cancers diagnosed 1983-94. Variations in survival over time and between European regions were also assessed for variations in quality of care. We also estimated the adjusted relative excess risk of death for every rare cancer. FINDINGS Overall 5-year relative survival was good (ie, >65%) for placental choriocarcinoma (85.4% [95% CI 81.4-89.5]), thyroid medullary carcinoma (72.4% [69.2-75.5]), ovarian germ-cell cancer (73.0% [70.0-76.0]), lung carcinoid (70.1% [67.3-72.9]), and cervical adenocarcinoma (65.5% [64.3-66.6]); intermediate (ie, 35-65%) for testicular cancer at age 65 years or older (64.0% [59.3-68.7]), sarcoma of extremities (60.0% [58.9-61.2]), digestive-system endocrine cancers (55.6% [54.9-56.3]), anal squamous-cell carcinoma (53.1% [51.5-54.8]), and uterine sarcoma (43.5% [42.0-44.9]); low for carcinoma of adrenal-gland cortex (32.7% [28.3-37.2]) and bladder squamous-cell carcinoma (20.4% [18.8-22.0]); and poor for angiosarcoma of liver (6.4% [1.8-11.0]) and mesothelioma (4.7% [4.3-5.2]). Survival was usually better for women than men and poor in those aged 75 years or older. Survival significantly improved over time for ovarian germ-cell cancer, sarcomas of extremities, digestive-system endocrine tumours, anal squamous-cell carcinoma, and angiosarcoma of liver. Survival in northern Europe was higher than in the other geographic groupings for most cancers. INTERPRETATION Because effective treatments are available for several of the rare cancers we assessed, further research is needed to ascertain why survival is lower in some European countries than in others, particularly in older patients. Audit of best practice for rare cancers with treatment protocols would be useful.