Aim Cardiotoxicity (CTox) is a major side effect of cancer therapies, but uniform diagnostic criteria to guide clinical and research practices are lacking. Methods and results We prospectively studied 865 patients, aged 54.7 ± 13.9; 16.3% men, scheduled for anticancer therapy related with moderate/high CTox risk. Four groups of progressive myocardial damage/dysfunction were considered according to current guidelines: normal, normal biomarkers (high-sensitivity troponin T and N-terminal natriuretic pro-peptide), and left ventricular (LV) function; mild, abnormal biomarkers, and/or LV dysfunction (LVD) maintaining an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%; moderate, LVD with LVEF 40–49%; and severe, LVD with LVEF ≤40% or symptomatic heart failure. Cardiotoxicity was defined as new or worsening of myocardial damage/ventricular function from baseline during follow-up. Patients were followed for a median of 24 months. Cardiotoxicity was identified in 37.5% patients during follow-up [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.22–40.8%], 31.6% with mild, 2.8% moderate, and 3.1% with severe myocardial damage/dysfunction. The mortality rate in the severe CTox group was 22.9 deaths per 100 patients-year vs. 2.3 deaths per 100 patients-year in the rest of groups, hazard ratio of 10.2 (95% CI 5.5–19.2) (P < 0.001). Conclusions The majority of patients present objective data of myocardial injury/dysfunction during or after cancer therapy. Nevertheless, severe CTox, with a strong prognostic relationship, was comparatively rare. This should be reflected in protocols for clinical and research practices.

Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) is an important cause of acute kidney injury that has experienced significant epidemiological and clinical changes in the last years. The classical presentation, mostly induced by antibiotics and accompanied by evident hypersensitivity manifestations (skin rash, eosinophilia, fever) has been largely replaced by oligosymptomatic presentations that require a higher index of suspicion and are increasingly recognized in the elderly, having non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and proton pump inhibitors as frequent offending drugs. Drug-induced AIN continues to be the commonest type, but it requires a careful differential diagnosis with other entities (tubulointerstitial nephritis with uveitis syndrome, IgG4-related disease, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom syndrome, sarcoidosis and other systemic diseases) that can also induce AIN. Cortico-dependant, relapsing AIN is a recently recognized entity that poses an important therapeutic challenge. Although corticosteroids are widely used in drug-induced AIN to speed kidney function recovery and avoid chronic kidney disease, their efficacy has not been tested by randomized controlled trials. New diagnostic tests and biomarkers, as well as prospective therapeutic studies are needed to improve AIN diagnosis and management.

RIB plus LET versus PBO plus LET is associated with earlier and more durable tumor response, greater degree of tumor shrinkage and pain reduction, and PFS benefit irrespective of TFI. These data further support RIB plus LET as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- ABC.

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.

No abstract