A joined analysis of two European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) studies to evaluate the role of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in the treatment of elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer.

We have performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of age, using a 70 year cutoff, on the safety and efficacy of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) given at 60 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks (treatment A) or 50 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks (treatment B) to 136 metastatic breast cancer patients in two EORTC trials, of whom 65 were 70 years of age or older. No difference in terms of toxicity was observed between younger and older patients treated with the 4-week schedule, while a higher incidence of hematological toxicity, anorexia, asthenia, and stomatitis was observed in older patients when the 6-week schedule was used. Antitumor activity was not affected by age. In the older cohort of patients, no dependence was found between the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity or antitumor activity and patients' baseline performance status, number and severity of comorbidities, or number of concomitant medications. The higher therapeutic index of Caelyx 50 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks makes it, of the two dose schedules investigated, the preferred regimen in the elderly.

Highlights from the 13th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2013. Access to innovation for patients with breast cancer: how to speed it up?

The recognition that early breast cancer is a spectrum of diseases each requiring a specific systemic therapy guided the 13th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference [1]. The meeting assembled 3600 participants from nearly 90 countries worldwide. Educational content has been centred on the primary and multidisciplinary treatment approach of early breast cancer. The meeting culminated on the final day, with the St Gallen Breast Cancer Treatment Consensus, established by 40-50 of the world's most experienced opinion leaders in the field of breast cancer treatment. The major issue that arose during the consensus conference was the increasing gap between what is theoretically feasible in patient risk stratification, in treatment, and in daily practice management. We need to find new paths to access innovations to clinical research and daily practice. To ensure that continued innovation meets the needs of patients, the therapeutic alliance between patients and academic-led research should to be extended to include relevant pharmaceutical companies and drug regulators with a unique effort to bring innovation into clinical practice. We need to bring together major players from the world of breast cancer research to map out a coordinated strategy on an international scale, to address the disease fragmentation, to share financial resources, and to integrate scientific data. The final goal will be to improve access to an affordable, best standard of care for all patients in each country.

Guidelines on artificial nutrition versus hydration in terminal cancer patients

Whether a terminally ill cancer patient should be actively fed or simply hydrated through subcutaneous or intravenous infusion of isotonic fluids is a matter of ongoing controversy among clinicians involved in the care of these patients. Under the auspices of the European Association for Palliative Care, a committee of experts developed guidelines to help clinicians make a reasonable decision on what type of nutritional support should be provided on a case-by-case basis. It was acknowledged that part of the controversy related to the definition of the terminal cancer patient, since this is a heterogeneous group of patients with different needs, expectations, and potential for a medical intervention. A major difficulty is the prediction of life expectancy and the patient's likely response to vigorous nutritional support. In an attempt to reach a decision on the type of treatment support (artificial nutrition vs. hydration) which would best meet the needs and expectations of the patient, we propose a three-step process: Step I: define the eight key elements necessary to reach a decision: Step II: make the decision; and Step III: reevaluate the patient and the proposed treatment at specified intervals. Step I involves assessing the patient concerning the following: 1) oncological/clinical condition; 2) symptoms; 3) expected length of survival; 4) hydration and nutritional status; 5) spontaneous or voluntary nutrient intake; 6) psychological profile; 7) gut function and potential route of administration; and 8) need for special services based on type of nutritional support prescribed. Step II involves the overall assessment of pros and cons, based on information determined in Step I, in order to reach an appropriate decision based on a well-defined end point (i.e. improvement of quality of life; maintaining patient survival; attaining rehydration). Step III involves the periodic reevaluation of the decision made in Step II based on the proposed goal and the attained result.