No abstract

Metastatic breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease that presents in varying forms, and a growing number of therapeutic options makes it difficult to determine the best choice in each particular situation. When selecting a systemic treatment, it is important to consider the medication administered in the previous stages, such as acquired resistance, type of progression, time to relapse, tumor aggressiveness, age, comorbidities, pre-and post-menopausal status, and patient preferences. Moreover, tumor genomic signatures can identify different subtypes, which can be used to create patient profiles and design specific therapies. However, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment sequence for each subgroup of patients. During the SABCC Congress of 2014, specialized breast cancer oncologists from referral hospitals in Europe met to define patient profiles and to determine specific treatment sequences for each one. Conclusions were then debated in a final meeting in which a relative degree of consensus for each treatment sequence was established. Four patient profiles were defined according to established breast cancer phenotypes: pre-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, post-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, patients with triple-negative subtype, and patients with HER2-positive subtype. A treatment sequence was then defined, consisting of hormonal therapy with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, fulvestrant, and mTOR inhibitors for pre-and post-menopausal patients; a chemotherapy sequence for the first, second, and further lines for luminal and triple-negative patients; and an optimal sequence for treatment with new antiHER2 therapies. Finally, a document detailing all treatment sequences, that had the agreement of all the oncologists, was drawn up as a guideline and advocacy tool for professionals treating patients with this disease.

Breast cancer is a major public health problem. Despite remarkable advances in early diagnosis and treatment, one in three women may have metastases since diagnosis. Better understanding of prognostic and predictive factors allows us to select the most appropriate adjuvant therapy in each patient. In these guidelines, we summarize current evidence for the medical management of early-stage breast cancer.

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of a biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (Binocrit®) for the treatment of patients with cancer and chemotherapy-induced anemia in real-life clinical practice. Materials & methods: Data were collected retrospectively from patients at five European centers (in France, Italy, The Netherlands, Romania and Spain) who received treatment with Binocrit. Hemoglobin (Hb) levels were recorded at regular intervals during Binocrit therapy for up to 26 weeks. Hb response (an increase of ≥1 g/dl in 4 weeks or a Hb level in the range 10–12 g/dl during the study) was assessed in patients with a Hb level ≥8.5 g/dl at the start of therapy who received treatment for at least 6 weeks. Hb response rates in patients who did and did not receive intravenous (iv.) iron were also assessed, and data on any serious unexpected adverse events were collected. Results: Among evaluable patients (n = 113), 79% achieved a Hb response. Response rates were similar among evaluable patients who received an initial Binocrit dose of 30,000 or 40,000 IU/week (81 vs 78%; p = not significant). The Hb response rate was significantly greater in patients who received iv. iron than in patients who did not receive iv. iron (93 vs 77%; p < 0.05). No serious unexpected adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Use of the biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent Binocrit is effective and safe for the treatment of patients with cancer and chemotherapy-induced anemia. Supplementation with iv. iron increases the response rate compared with oral or no iron supplementation.

Purpose The objective of this study is to analyse the relative survival with breast cancer in women diagnosed after new treatments were generalised and to ascertain the current effect that tumour characteristics such as grade, stage or subtype have on survival as well as the new AJCC-pathological prognostic score. Methods The breast cancer MCC-Spain follow-up study is a prospective cohort study of 1685 incident breast cancer cases. Women between 20 and 85 years old were recruited between the years 2008 and 2013 in 18 hospitals located in 10 Spanish provinces and they have been followed until 2017/2018. Relative survival was estimated after 3, 5 and 8 years of follow-up using Ederer II method. In addition, Weibull regression adjusted by age, hospital, grade and stage was used to investigate prognosis factors. Results Among components of TNM staging system, tumour size greater than 50 mm (i.e. T3 or T4) more than doubled the risk of dying, while N3 nodal involvement and presence of metastasis had a huge effect on mortality. The AJCC pathological prognostic score strongly correlated with survival; thus, hazard ratios increased as the score rose, being 2.31, 4.00, 4.94, 7.92, 2.26, 14.9 and 58.9 for scores IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IIIC and IV, respectively. Conclusion Both TNM staging and histological/molecular biomarkers are associated with overall survival in Spanish women with breast cancer; when both are combined in the AJCC pathological prognosis score, the prognostic value improved with risk indices that increased rapidly as the pathological prognosis score increased