ABSTRACT
Introduction: The risk for metastasis at primary diagnosis of breast cancer is about 4%. The German guidelines give clear indications on when, who, and how to stage breast cancer patients. Ideally, this should be done via computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan of the thorax and abdomen and an additional bone scan. But daily practice shows that the way health-care providers handle staging recommendations can vary. To objectify adherence to guidelines we started a nation-wide survey. Methods: Between July and September 2020, we sent out a survey via email to all certified and noncertified breast centers and in addition to all Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Germany. We asked for timing of staging, conditions that cause staging, and the applied method. In case we did not get any reply, we sent out a reminder. Results: A total of 220 certified breast centers, 28 noncertified breast centers, and 48 Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology who care for breast cancer patients took part in our survey. A general pretherapeutic staging was performed in 16.4%, 39.3%, and 66.7% of all institutions and a general postoperative staging was performed in 4.1%, 0%, and 6.3% of each institutional type, respectively. In terms of the applied method, 75% of all certified breast centers used a CAT scan and bone scan, while 23.3% primarily used chest X-ray, ultrasound of the abdomen (27.7%), or MRI. As a potential reason for using X-ray and ultrasound, the presence of a "low-risk" breast cancer was mentioned. Summary: Although certified breast centers show the highest adherence to current guidelines, some still perform a general staging or do not use the recommended staging method. The low probability of primary metastatic breast cancer and the use of a reasonable exposure to radiation warrant a critical discussion.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many studies about the adjuvant endocrine therapy of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer have shown significant superiority of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) compared to tamoxifen only. Within these studies, different AIs (anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane) and treatment strategies (upfront, switch, extended adjuvant) were applied. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The intention of our enquiry was to evaluate the implementation of the results of these studies in German breast cancer centers and university hospitals. Questionnaires were sent to 200 breast cancer centers and university hospitals (returns: 108). RESULTS: Our enquiry showed that most centers preferred anastrozole as upfront therapy in patients with an intermediate or high risk of relapse. Furthermore, during AI therapy, additional bisphosphonate treatment was applied 'always' in only 9% of cases, and in 78% of cases of proved osteopenia/osteoporosis. Surprisingly, 50% of the participating centers do not exclude AIs in premenopausal women. CONCLUSION: At the time of our enquiry, anastrozole as upfront therapy was consistent with the recommendations of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) from 2009. Compared to tamoxifen, AIs increase the risk of osteoporosis, which can, however, be prevented and treated with concomitant bisphosphonate therapy. The rare use of bisphosphonates as well as contraindicated AI therapy in premenopausal patients show amongst others the substantial need for more information.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This open-label, randomized phase III study was designed to investigate the effects of erythropoietin alfa (EPO) in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic radiotherapy (CRT) in patients with stage IB to II cervical cancer who had undergone radical hysterectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty-seven patients were randomly assigned to four cycles of carboplatin/ifosfamide chemotherapy followed by external-beam pelvic radiotherapy (CRT group) or four cycles of carboplatin/ifosfamide chemotherapy and EPO followed by pelvic radiotherapy and EPO (CRT + EPO group). The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), change in hemoglobin levels, and safety, including thromboembolic events. RESULTS: The estimated 5-year RFS rates were 78% for patients receiving CRT + EPO and 70% for patients receiving CRT. There was no statistically significant difference in RFS, although a trend favoring patients treated with CRT + EPO was observed (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.12; log-rank P = .06). Exploratory analyses suggest a benefit with CRT + EPO for patients with stage IB to IIA disease (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.85; P = .014) or patients with complete resection (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.98; P = .039). OS was similar in both groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.50; log-rank P = .63). Patients treated with EPO maintained higher hemoglobin levels throughout CRT. No significant differences in safety profiles were observed between the two groups. Incidence of thrombovascular events was low (2%) and comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that EPO can be added safely to CRT in patients with cervical cancer, but it failed to demonstrate a significant benefit in RFS and OS.
