PURPOSE To determine the efficacy and toxicity of chemoimmunotherapy followed by either whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or intensive chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) as a first-line treatment of primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL). PATIENTS AND METHODS Immunocompetent patients (18 to 60 years of age) with untreated PCNSL were randomly assigned to receive WBRT or ASCT as consolidation treatment after induction chemotherapy consisting of two cycles of R-MBVP (rituximab 375 mg/m2 day (D) 1, methotrexate 3 g/m2 D1; D15, VP16 100 mg/m2 D2, BCNU 100 mg/m2 D3, prednisone 60 mg/kg/d D1-D5) followed by two cycles of R-AraC (rituximab 375 mg/m2 D1, cytarabine 3 g/m2 D1 to D2). Intensive chemotherapy consisted of thiotepa (250 mg/m2/d D9; D8; D7), busulfan (8 mg/kg D6 through D4), and cyclophosphamide (60 mg/kg/d D3; D2). WBRT delivered 40 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). The primary end point was 2-year progression-free survival. Cognitive outcome was the main secondary end point. Analysis was intention to treat in a noncomparative phase II trial. RESULTS Between October 2008 and February 2014, 140 patients were recruited from 23 French centers. Both WBRT and ASCT met the predetermined threshold (among the first 38 patients in each group, at least 24 patients were alive and disease free at 2 years). The 2-year progression-free survival rates were 63% (95% CI, 49% to 81%) and 87% (95% CI, 77% to 98%) in the WBRT and ASCT arms, respectively. Toxicity deaths were recorded in one and five patients after WBRT and ASCT, respectively. Cognitive impairment was observed after WBRT, whereas cognitive functions were preserved or improved after ASCT. CONCLUSION WBRT and ASCT are effective consolidation treatments for patients with PCNSL who are 60 years of age and younger. The efficacy end points tended to favor the ASCT arm. The specific risk of each procedure should be considered.

IMPORTANCEThe choice between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2 (also known as HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer is usually based on the presence of clinical features associated with a poor prognosis. In this setting, a high circulating tumor cell (CTC) count (Ն5 CTCs/7.5 mL) is a strong adverse prognostic factor for overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS).OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of a clinician-driven treatment choice vs a CTC-driven choice for first-line treatment. INTERVENTIONSIn the CTC arm, patients received chemotherapy or endocrine therapy according to the CTC count (chemotherapy if Ն5 CTCs/7.5 mL; endocrine therapy if <5 CTCs/7.5 mL), whereas in the control arm, the choice was left to the investigator. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn the STIC CTC randomized, open-label, noninferiority phase 3 trial, participants were randomized to a clinician-driven choice of first-line treatment or a CTC count-driven first-line treatment choice. Eligible participants were premenopausal and postmenopausal women 18 years or older diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Data were collected at 17 French cancer centers

Background: Palbociclib is a CDK4/6 inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy and safety in combination with endocrine therapy in advanced luminal breast cancer (LBC). We evaluated the respective efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and letrozolepalbociclib (LETPAL) combination as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with high-risk LBC. Patients and methods: NeoPAL (UCBG10/4, NCT02400567) is a randomised, parallel, non-comparative phase II study. Patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, Prosigna V R-defined luminal B, or luminal A and node-positive, stage II-III breast cancer, not candidate for breast-conserving surgery, were randomly assigned to either letrozole (2.5 mg daily) and palbociclib (125 mg daily, 3 weeks/4) during 19 weeks, or to FEC100 (5FU 500 mg/m 2 , epirubicin 100 mg/m 2 , cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m 2)Â3 21-day courses followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m 2 Â3 21-day courses. Primary end point was residual cancer burden (RCB 0-I rate). Secondary end points included clinical response, proliferation-based markers, and safety. Results: Overall, 106 patients were randomised [median Prosigna V R ROR Score 71 (22-93)]. RCB 0-I was observed in four and eight patients in LETPAL [7.7% (95% CI 0.4-14.9)] and chemotherapy [15.7% (95% CI 5.7-25.7)] arms, respectively. Pathological complete response rates were 3.8% and 5.9%. Clinical response (75%) and breast-conserving surgery rates (69%) were similar in both arms. Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index 0 scores (breast cancer-specific survival) were observed in 17.6% and 8.0% of patients in LETPAL and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Safety profile was as expected, with 2 versus 17 serious adverse events (including 11 grade 4 serious AEs in the chemotherapy arm). Conclusion: LETPAL combination was associated with poor pathological response but encouraging clinical and biomarker responses in Prosigna V R-defined high-risk LBC. Contemporary chemotherapy regimen was associated with poor pathological and biomarker responses, with a much less favourable safety profile. LETPAL combination might represent an alternative to chemotherapy in early high-risk LBC.