Jérémy Baude

Objectives: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the alignment between treatment decisions made during multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) and the treatments received by patients with upper aerodigestive tract cancers. The secondary objective was to identify factors influencing potential discrepancies. Methods: This retrospective, single-center study was conducted at a tertiary referral center and included 147 patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract. Patients were divided into two groups based on the match between MTM-decided and actual treatments. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess factors independently associated with discrepancies. Results: Out of 147 patients, 28 (19%) received treatment that did not align with MTM decisions. Among these, eight died before treatment, one patient refused care, five received supportive care, five patients underwent surgery, three received radiotherapy alone, one patient underwent surgery and adjuvant radiochemotherapy, one patient underwent surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy alone, three patients received radiochemotherapy, and one patient received palliative chemotherapy. Independent significant factors associated with non-concordance included poor performance status (PS) and treatment not received at a tertiary reference center. Treatment shifts mainly involved downgrading from curative to palliative care. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of patient health status in determining deviations from MTM decisions. Further efforts should focus on improving the integration of patient comorbidities and health status into MTM decision-making to optimize care delivery.

A 27-year-old male patient presented with anal discomfort and pruritus for 3 months. What is your diagnosis?

Background: The treatment of stage I-III HPV+ oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-OPSCC) is based on either surgery ± adjuvant therapy or exclusive radio±chemotherapy. We sought to compare these two therapeutic strategies in terms of efficacy, tolerance and quality of life (QoL). Methods: Patients treated for stage I-III HPV-OPSCC from 2010 to 2021 in 3 academic centers were included and sorted according to the treatment strategy: surgery or exclusive radio±chemotherapy. Efficacy and tolerance were retrospectively assessed, and a transversal exploratory QoL assessment was performed using QoL instruments. Results: A total of 83 patients were included, with 21 undergoing non-minimally invasive surgery and 62 receiving definitive radio-±chemotherapy. 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were respectively 80% and 86% in the surgical group and 92% and 95% in the non-surgical group, with no significant difference. At the end of treatment, 64.5% of patients presented with a grade III toxicity, without significant difference between the two groups. No patient had late grade III toxicity at 24 months. Forty-five patients (11 in the surgical group, 34 in the non-surgical group) participated in an exploratory quality-of-life analysis. Patients reported significantly more fatigue and loss of appetite after surgery, whereas patients in the radio±chemotherapy group described significantly more salivary and oral problems and difficulty swallowing, but the median time between treatment completion and the response to the questionnaires. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in efficacy, physician-reported toxicity and overall patient-reported quality of life was found between non-minimally invasive surgery and radio±chemotherapy in the treatment of stage I-III HPV-OPSCC.

Background: Chemotherapy using carboplatin and etoposide (CE) is frequently pragmatically proposed to treat metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), both primary small-cell neuroendocrine (PSC-NE) carcinoma and adenocarcinoma with or without neuroendocrine (NE) marker elevation. However, the real benefit of CE is poorly reported in the recent therapeutic context. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and tolerance of CE chemotherapy in these three different groups of mPC patients. Efficacy endpoints included radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), as well as PSA response and PFS2/PFS1 ratio in patients with adenocarcinoma. Results: Sixty-nine patients were included in this single-center study (N = 18 with PSC-NE carcinoma and 51 with adenocarcinoma with (N = 18) or without (N = 33) NE marker elevation). Patients with adenocarcinoma were highly pretreated with next-generation hormonal agents (NHAs) and taxanes. In patients with adenocarcinoma, a PSA response ≥50% was observed in six patients (15.8%), four of whom had NE marker elevation. The radiological response was higher in PSC-NE and tended to be higher in adenocarcinoma when NE marker elevation was present. Comparing patients with adenocarcinoma with vs. without NE marker elevation, the median PFS was 3.7 and 2.1 months and the median OS was 7.7 and 4.7 months, respectively. Overall, 62.3% of patients experienced grade 3–4 adverse events (mainly hematological), and three treatment-related deaths were recorded. Conclusion: Reports of the clinical results of CE suggest that we should not mix PSC-NE and castration-resistant adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In patients with heavily pretreated adenocarcinoma, the benefit/risk ratio of CE chemotherapy seems unfavorable due to poor response and high toxicity.

Background: The management of cancer relapse in previously irradiated tissues is a challenging therapeutic issue. The aim of this work was to report our experience with breast reirradiation for locoregionally recurrent breast cancer. Methods: All patients who underwent breast or chest wall in-field reirradiation at the Institut Curie, Paris, France, between 2003 and 2019, were identified. Efficacy outcomes and physician-reported toxicities were retrospectively assessed. Results: A total of 21,372 patients underwent breast irradiation in our institution. Of these, 28 received a second course of radiotherapy to the homolateral breast/chest wall. A total of 18 (64%) patients were treated with a curative intent, and 10 (36%) were treated for palliative purposes. Only one acute and one late grade 3 adverse events were reported. One patient with major cardiovascular risk factors died of myocardial infarction 13 months after left breast reirradiation. The 2-year LRFS, OS, DSS, PFS and MFS were 59%, 79%, 82%, 46% and 75%, respectively, in the whole cohort. The 2-year LRFS (72% vs. 31%, p = 0.02), OS (94% vs. 50%, p < 0.01), DSS (94% vs. 56%, p < 0.01) and PFS (61% vs. 20%, p = 0.02) differed significantly between patients treated with curative or palliative intent but not the MFS (78% vs. 69%, p = 0.77). Among the patients, eight (29%) remained relapse-free 5 years after reirradiation. Conclusion: Breast/chest wall reirradiation appears to be feasible with good disease control, especially in patients treated with a curative intent, and presents acceptable toxicity rates.

Background The treatment of stage I-III HPV + oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-OPSCC) is based on either surgery ± adjuvant therapy or exclusive radio ± chemotherapy. We sought to compare these two therapeutic strategies in terms of efficacy, tolerance and quality of life (QoL).Methods Patients treated for stage I-III HPV-OPSCC from 2010 to 2021in 3 academic centers were included and sorted according to the treatment strategy: surgery or exclusive radio ± chemotherapy. Efficacy and tolerance were retrospectively assessed, and QoL was prospectively evaluated using QoL assessment instruments.Results Eighty-three patients were included, 21 underwent surgery and 62 definitive radio-±chemotherapy. 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were respectively 80% and 86% in the surgical group and 92% and 95% in the non-surgical group, with no significant difference. At the end of treatment, 64.5% of patients presented a grade III symptom, without significant difference between the two groups. No patient had late grade III toxicity at 24 months. Forty-five patients (11 in the surgical group, 34 in the nonsurgical group) participated in the prospective quality-of-life analysis. Patients reported significantly more fatigue and loss of appetite after surgery, whereas patients in the radio ± chemotherapy group described significantly more salivary and oral problems and difficulty swallowing. The global quality of life score tended to be better in the radio ± chemotherapy group (EORTC QLQ-C30 77.6 vs 65.2, p = 0.07).Conclusion No significant difference in terms of efficacy, physician-reported toxicity and patient-reported quality of life was found between surgery and radio ± chemotherapy in the treatment of stage I-III HPV-OPSCC.