This review focuses on the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the context of breast cancer (BC) management. These innovative treatments, by targeting proteins expressed on both tumor and immune cells, aim to overcome tumor-induced immune suppression and reactivate the immune system. The potential of this approach is the subject of numerous clinical studies. Here, we explore the key studies and emerging therapies related to ICIs providing a detailed analysis of their specific and combined use in BC treatment.
{"title":"The landscape of combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with novel Therapies: Secret alliances against breast cancer.","authors":"Federico Rebaudi, Fabiana De Franco, Rayan Goda, Valentina Obino, Giorgio Vita, Camilla Baronti, Eleonora Iannone, Francesca Pitto, Barbara Massa, Daniela Fenoglio, Camilla Jandus, Francesca Poggio, Piero Fregatti, Ombretta Melaiu, Matteo Bozzo, Simona Candiani, Federica Papaccio, Marco Greppi, Silvia Pesce, Emanuela Marcenaro","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102831","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This review focuses on the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the context of breast cancer (BC) management. These innovative treatments, by targeting proteins expressed on both tumor and immune cells, aim to overcome tumor-induced immune suppression and reactivate the immune system. The potential of this approach is the subject of numerous clinical studies. Here, we explore the key studies and emerging therapies related to ICIs providing a detailed analysis of their specific and combined use in BC treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":93922,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142334356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-12DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753
Michael G Fadel, Mosab Ahmed, Annabel Shaw, Matyas Fehervari, Christos Kontovounisios, Gina Brown
Background: Local resection (LR) methods for rectal cancer are generally considered in the palliative setting or for patients deemed a high anaesthetic risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare oncological outcomes of LR and radical resection (RR) for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance assessment.
Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare databases was performed for studies that reported data on clinical outcomes for both LR and RR for early rectal cancer from January 1995 to April 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. The quality of assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials.
Results: Twenty studies with 12,022 patients were included: 6,476 patients had LR and 5,546 patients underwent RR. RR led to an improvement in 5-year overall survival (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.54-2.20; p < 0.0001; I2 20 %) and local recurrence (OR 3.06; 95 % CI 2.02-4.64; p < 0.0001; I2 39 %) when compared to LR. However, when staging and surveillance methods were clearly adopted in LR cases, there was an improvement in R0 rates (96.7 % vs 85.6 %), 5-year disease-free survival (93.0 % vs 77.9 %) and overall survival (81.6 % vs 79.0 %) compared to when staging and surveillance was not reported/performed.
Conclusions: LR may be appropriate for selected patients without poor prognostic factors in early rectal cancer. This study also highlights that there is currently no single standardised staging or surveillance approach being adopted in the management of early rectal cancer. A more specified and standardised preoperative staging for patient selection as well as clinical and image-based surveillance protocols is needed.
背景：直肠癌的局部切除术（LR）方法一般用于姑息治疗或麻醉风险较高的患者。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在从分期和监测评估的角度比较早期直肠癌局部切除术和根治性切除术（RR）的肿瘤学结果：方法：对MEDLINE、Embase和Emcare数据库中1995年1月至2023年4月期间报告早期直肠癌LR和RR临床疗效数据的研究进行文献检索。采用随机效应模型进行了 Meta 分析，并评估了研究间的异质性。对观察性研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估，对随机对照试验采用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 工具进行评估：共纳入 20 项研究，12,022 名患者：6476名患者接受了LR治疗，5546名患者接受了RR治疗。与 LR 相比，RR 可提高 5 年总生存率（OR 1.84；95 % CI 1.54-2.20；P 2 20 %）和局部复发率（OR 3.06；95 % CI 2.02-4.64；P 2 39 %）。然而，如果在 LR 病例中明确采用分期和监测方法，与未报告/未进行分期和监测时相比，R0 率（96.7 % vs 85.6 %）、5 年无病生存率（93.0 % vs 77.9 %）和总生存率（81.6 % vs 79.0 %）均有所提高：结论：对于没有不良预后因素的特定早期直肠癌患者，LR可能是合适的选择。这项研究还强调，目前在早期直肠癌的治疗中还没有采用单一的标准化分期或监测方法。有必要制定更加明确和标准化的术前分期，以便选择患者，并制定基于临床和图像的监测方案。
{"title":"Oncological outcomes of local excision versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Michael G Fadel, Mosab Ahmed, Annabel Shaw, Matyas Fehervari, Christos Kontovounisios, Gina Brown","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local resection (LR) methods for rectal cancer are generally considered in the palliative setting or for patients deemed a high anaesthetic risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare oncological outcomes of LR and radical resection (RR) for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare databases was performed for studies that reported data on clinical outcomes for both LR and RR for early rectal cancer from January 1995 to April 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. The quality of assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty studies with 12,022 patients were included: 6,476 patients had LR and 5,546 patients underwent RR. RR led to an improvement in 5-year overall survival (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.54-2.20; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> 20 %) and local recurrence (OR 3.06; 95 % CI 2.02-4.64; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> 39 %) when compared to LR. However, when staging and surveillance methods were clearly adopted in LR cases, there was an improvement in R0 rates (96.7 % vs 85.6 %), 5-year disease-free survival (93.0 % vs 77.9 %) and overall survival (81.6 % vs 79.0 %) compared to when staging and surveillance was not reported/performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LR may be appropriate for selected patients without poor prognostic factors in early rectal cancer. This study also highlights that there is currently no single standardised staging or surveillance approach being adopted in the management of early rectal cancer. A more specified and standardised preoperative staging for patient selection as well as clinical and image-based surveillance protocols is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":93922,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140961133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号