| 1. |
- Cardoso, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Characterization of male breast cancer : Results of the EORTC 10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male Breast Cancer Program
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 29:2, s. 405-417
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Male breast cancer (BC) is rare, managed by extrapolation from female BC. The International Male BC Program aims to better characterize and manage this disease. We report the results of part I, a retrospective joint analysis of cases diagnosed during a 20-year period. Methods: Patients with follow-up and tumor samples, treated between 1990 and 2010, in 93 centers/9 countries. Samples were centrally analyzed in three laboratories (the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States). Results: Of 1822 patients enrolled, 1483 were analyzed; 63.5% were diagnosed between 2001 and 2010, 57 (5.1%) had metastatic disease (M1). Median age at diagnosis: 68.4 years. Of 1054 M0 cases, 56.2% were node-negative (N0) and 48.5% had T1 tumors; 4% had breast conserving surgery (BCS), 18% sentinel lymph-node biopsy; half received adjuvant radiotherapy; 29.8% (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and 76.8% adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), mostly tamoxifen (88.4%). Per central pathology, for M0 tumors: 84.8% ductal invasive carcinomas, 51.5% grade 2; 99.3% estrogen receptor (ER)-positive; 81.9% progesterone receptor (PR)-positive; 96.9% androgen receptor (AR)-positive [ER, PR or AR Allred score ≥ 3]; 61.1% Ki67 expression low (<14% positive cells); using immunohistochemistry (IHC) surrogates, 41.9% were Luminal-A-like, 48.6% Luminal-B-like/HER-2-negative, 8.7% HER-2-positive, 0.3% triple negative. Median follow-up: 8.2 years (0.0-23.8) for all, 7.2 years (0.0-23.2), for M0, 2.6 years (0.0-12.7) for M1 patients. A significant improvement over time was observed in age-corrected BC mortality. BC-specific-mortality was higher for men younger than 50 years. Better overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were observed for highly ER+(P=0.001), highly PR+(P=0.002), highly AR+ disease (P=0.019). There was no association between OS/RFS and HER-2 status, Ki67, IHC subtypes nor grade. Conclusions: Male BC is usually ER, PR and AR-positive, Luminal B-like/HER2-negative. Of note, 56% patients had T1 tumors but only 4% had BCS. ER was highly positive in > 90% of cases but only 77% received adjuvant ET. ER, PR and AR were associated with OS and RFS, whereas grade, Ki67 and IHC surrogates were not. Significant improvement in survival over time was observed.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jaffee, E. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 18:11
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is providing new insights into human biology and cancer. In this era of big data, we are amassing large amounts of information that is transforming how we approach cancer treatment and prevention. Enactment of the Cancer Moonshot within the 21st Century Cures Act in the USA arrived at a propitious moment in the advancement of knowledge, providing nearly US$ 2 billion of funding for cancer research and precision medicine. In 2016, the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) set out a roadmap of recommendations designed to exploit new advances in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Those recommendations provided a high-level view of how to accelerate the conversion of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. The US National Cancer Institute is already implementing some of those recommendations. As experts in the priority areas identified by the BRP, we bolster those recommendations to implement this important scientific roadmap. In this Commission, we examine the BRP recommendations in greater detail and expand the discussion to include additional priority areas, including surgical oncology, radiation oncology, imaging, health systems and health disparities, regulation and financing, population science, and oncopolicy. We prioritise areas of research in the USA that we believe would accelerate efforts to benefit patients with cancer. Finally, we hope the recommendations in this report will facilitate new international collaborations to further enhance global efforts in cancer control.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
