No abstract

The present updated analysis, which was limited to patients on monotherapy arms in BIG 1-98, yields results similar to those from the previous primary analysis but more directly comparable with results from other trials of continuous therapy using a single endocrine agent.

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were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged.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 psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and its utility as a screening instrument for anxiety and depression in a non-psychiatric setting were evaluated. The questionnaire was administered twice to 197 breast cancer patients randomised in a phase III adjuvant clinical trial: before the start of chemotherapy and at the first follow-up visit. The presence of psychiatric disorders was evaluated at the follow-up visit using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R in 132 patients. Factor analyses identified two strictly correlated factors. Crohnbach's alpha for the anxiety and depression scales ranged between 0.80 and 0.85. At follow-up, 50 patients (38%) were assigned a current DSM-III-R diagnosis, in most cases adjustment disorders (24%) or major depressive disorder (10%). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to test the discriminant validity for both anxiety and depressive disorders. The comparison of the areas under the curve (AUC) between the two scales did not show any difference in identifying either anxiety (P = 0.855) or depressive disorders (P = 0.357). The 14-item total scale showed a high internal consistency (alpha = 0.89 and 0.88) and a high discriminating power for all the psychiatric disorders (AUC = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.83-0.94). The cut-off point that maximised sensitivity (84%) and specificity (79%) was 10. These results suggest that the total score is a valid measure of emotional distress, so that the Italian version of HADS can be used as a screening questionnaire for psychiatric disorders. The use of the two subscales as a 'case identifier' or as an outcome measure should be considered with caution.

Background: In the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-boundpaclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumabepaclitaxel in aTNBC. Patients and methods: Eligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or 12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m 2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression 1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint. Results: Of 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P ¼ 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placeboepaclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumabepaclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placeboepaclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumabepaclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placeboe paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug. Conclusion: Combining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03125902.