ABSTRACT
Hormone treatment is one of the key strategies in the management of metastatic breast cancer. Hormone treatment is one of the key strategies in the management of metastatic breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors (AI) have been extensively studied in this setting. This section summarizes the key data regarding the use of AI in advanced breast cancer. In postmenopausal women, AI are the first line of treatment for untreated patients, or those who had prior AI treatment and progress after 12 months of adjuvant therapy. A longer disease-free interval and absence of visceral disease is associated with a better response. If tumors recur in less than 12 months, it is recommended that tamoxifen (TAM) or the estrogen-receptor antagonist fulvestrant (FUL) treatment be initiated. In the second-line setting, the best option after progression is the administration of either FUL or TAM. In the third-line setting, reintroduction of AI is considered an acceptable option. In premenopausal women who have not received prior treatment or who have progressed after 12 months following adjuvant treatment, it is recommended to initiate therapy with a combination of TAM and a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog. If there is treatment failure with the use of this combination, megestrol acetate or an LHRH agonist plus an AI may be reasonable alternatives. Intensive research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of resistance to hormone therapy. In human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive-patients, combinations with HER2 antagonists are associated with significant clinical activity.
Subject(s)
Aromatase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Anastrozole , Androstadienes/administration & dosage , Androstadienes/adverse effects , Aromatase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Disease Management , Disease-Free Survival , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Delivery Systems , Estradiol/administration & dosage , Estradiol/adverse effects , Estradiol/analogs & derivatives , Female , Fulvestrant , Humans , Letrozole , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Invasiveness/pathology , Neoplasm Metastasis , Nitriles/administration & dosage , Nitriles/adverse effects , Prognosis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome , Triazoles/administration & dosage , Triazoles/adverse effectsABSTRACT
We present the case of a 60-year-old man with a primary pulmonary melanotic schwannoma treated with surgery and who developed an orbital and myocardial relapse 2 years after the initial diagnosis. Melanotic schwannomas are rare pigmented tumours that tend to arise from the peripheral nerves near the midline. A primary lung presentation, as in our case, is extremely rare. In more than half of cases, the Carney triad of myxomas of the heart, skin and breast, spotty pigmentation and endocrine hyperactivity is present. A thorough pathological study is pivotal for a correct diagnosis. The main differential diagnosis is with metastases of malignant melanoma. The biological behaviour is unpredictable. Treatment should include radical surgery if possible; the role of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is uncertain due to the rarity of the tumour (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Heart Neoplasms/secondary , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Myocardium/pathology , Neurilemmoma/pathology , Neurilemmoma/secondary , Orbital Neoplasms/pathology , Orbital Neoplasms/secondary , Immunohistochemistry/methods , ImmunohistochemistryABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To identify clinical and biologic variables with significant impact on survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUP) and to develop a simple prognostic model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, univariate and multivariate prognostic factors analyses were conducted in a population of 100 patients with CUP. Patients with features requiring well defined treatments had previously been excluded. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) was significantly related to the following pretreatment adverse prognostic clinical factors: a poor performance status (2 or 3), weight loss more than 10% in the last six months, the presence of liver metastases and more than two metastatic sites. Two biological parameters predicted a significantly shorter survival: elevated serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and of lactate dehydrogenase. In the multivariate analysis, only two independent adverse prognostic parameters were retained: a poor performance status and the presence of liver metastases. We developed a prognostic model for OS based on the following subgroups: good prognosis (PS 0 or 1 and absence of liver metastases), intermediate prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases) and poor prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases). Median OS for the three groups was 10.8, 4 and 1.9 months respectively, p<0.0001. CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic model using performance status and presence of liver metastases was developed. It allowed the assignment of patients into three subgroups with different outcomes. Treatment strategies could be adapted for each subgroup. We think that this prognostic model could be useful and should be validated in other patient series.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma/diagnosis , Carcinoma/secondary , Neoplasms, Unknown Primary/diagnosis , Neoplasms, Unknown Primary/mortality , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biomarkers, Tumor/blood , Carcinoma/mortality , Female , Humans , Male , Models, Biological , Models, Statistical , Multivariate Analysis , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Serum Albumin/metabolism , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To identify clinical and biologic variables with significant impact on survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUP) and to develop a simple prognostic model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, univariate and multivariate prognostic factors analyses were conducted in a population of 100 patients with CUP. Patients with features requiring well defined treatments had previously been excluded. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) was significantly related to the following pretreatment adverse prognostic clinical factors: a poor performance status (2 or 3), weight loss more than 10% in the last six months, the presence of liver metastases and more than two metastatic sites. Two biological parameters predicted a significantly shorter survival: elevated serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and of lactate dehydrogenase. In the multivariate analysis, only two independent adverse prognostic parameters were retained: a poor performance status and the presence of liver metastases. We developed a prognostic model for OS based on the following subgroups: good prognosis (PS 0 or 1 and absence of liver metastases), intermediate prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases) and poor prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases). Median OS for the three groups was 10.8, 4 and 1.9 months respectively, p<0.0001. CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic model using performance status and presence of liver metastases was developed. It allowed the assignment of patients into three subgroups with different outcomes. Treatment strategies could be adapted for each subgroup. We think that this prognostic model could be useful and should be validated in other patient series (AU)
