Predictive signatures for chemotherapy sensitivity in breast cancer: Are they ready for use in the clinic? My first Pick of the Papers for this 3rd Quarter is Predictive signatures for chemotherapy sensitivity in breast cancer: Are they ready for use in the clinic? Issue 45:10 - Pages 1733-1743, Herve Bonnefoi et al. In this excellent Current Perspective Herve Bonnefoi and his colleagues pose the question of whether or not predictive markers in the current literature are ready for routine clinical use? They review retrospective trials that have claimed promising chemotherapy signatures and prospective trials testing multi-gene classifiers to predict chemo sensitivity. Their discussion hypothesises as to why micro array studies have so far failed to identify new targets. Highly recommended reading. Click here to view paper Does microsatellite instability predict the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer? A systematic review with meta-analysis It is well known that amongst the many genetic abnormalities involved in carcinogenesis microsatellite instability is a major contribution to the malignant process. In this systematic review with meta-analysis, Issue 45:10 – Pages 1890 – 1896, Des Guetz and his colleagues from Bobigny in France review seven studies in theliterature involving 3690 patients. 14% of the global population (454 patients in this review) had a high level of microsatellite instability. MSI status proved both a good prognostic factor and a predictive factor for non-response to chemotherapy. Click here to view paper Health care costs for treatment of disseminated breast cancer Health economics is a subject of enormous importance in the current financial climate but a subject which is very difficult for many people to understand and hence a source of much confusion and criticism. In this brief paper. Issue 45:11 – Pages 1987 – 1991, Dalberg and his colleagues present a detailed analysis of health care costs for treating disseminated breast cancer in Sweden. Although based on a small patient population this very readable paper emphasises what many of us suspect - that the mean cost calculated is in fact considerably higher than previous estimates. There is no way that we can ignore the cost-benefit arguments and this paper contributes to an understanding of the way that cost effectiveness can be measured. Click here to view paper Therapeutic vaccines in solid tumours: Can they be harmful? Last year at ASCO the results of several vaccine trials in malignant melanoma were reviewed with not only futility but actual negative results where patients who had received immunotherapeutical approaches had relapsed more rapidly than control patients. Given that these trials involved different specific vaccines this raises the very serious criticism that this approach may actually be harmful. In the excellent review of the literature, Issue 45: 12 – Pages 2087 – 2090, Alexander Eggermont from Rotterdam briefly reviews the facts, and there is an accompanying editorial by Leif Hakansson (pages 2068 - 2070) from Malmo in Sweden commenting on some potential biological reasons for these adverse effects and postulating approaches to overcome this. A must read for all those involved in developing immunological approaches to the treatment of cancer. Click here to view paper
Predictive signatures for chemotherapy sensitivity in breast cancer: Are they ready for use in the clinic?
My first Pick of the Papers for this 3rd Quarter is Predictive signatures for chemotherapy sensitivity in breast cancer: Are they ready for use in the clinic? Issue 45:10 - Pages 1733-1743, Herve Bonnefoi et al.
In this excellent Current Perspective Herve Bonnefoi and his colleagues pose the question of whether or not predictive markers in the current literature are ready for routine clinical use? They review retrospective trials that have claimed promising chemotherapy signatures and prospective trials testing multi-gene classifiers to predict chemo sensitivity. Their discussion hypothesises as to why micro array studies have so far failed to identify new targets. Highly recommended reading.
Click here to view paper
Does microsatellite instability predict the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer? A systematic review with meta-analysis
It is well known that amongst the many genetic abnormalities involved in carcinogenesis microsatellite instability is a major contribution to the malignant process.
In this systematic review with meta-analysis, Issue 45:10 – Pages 1890 – 1896, Des Guetz and his colleagues from Bobigny in France review seven studies in theliterature involving 3690 patients. 14% of the global population (454 patients in this review) had a high level of microsatellite instability. MSI status proved both a good prognostic factor and a predictive factor for non-response to chemotherapy.
Health care costs for treatment of disseminated breast cancer
Health economics is a subject of enormous importance in the current financial climate but a subject which is very difficult for many people to understand and hence a source of much confusion and criticism.
In this brief paper. Issue 45:11 – Pages 1987 – 1991, Dalberg and his colleagues present a detailed analysis of health care costs for treating disseminated breast cancer in Sweden. Although based on a small patient population this very readable paper emphasises what many of us suspect - that the mean cost calculated is in fact considerably higher than previous estimates.
There is no way that we can ignore the cost-benefit arguments and this paper contributes to an understanding of the way that cost effectiveness can be measured.
Click here to
view paper
Therapeutic vaccines in solid tumours: Can they be harmful?
Last year at ASCO the results of several vaccine trials in malignant melanoma were reviewed with not only futility but actual negative results where patients who had received immunotherapeutical approaches had relapsed more rapidly than control patients. Given that these trials involved different specific vaccines this raises the very serious criticism that this approach may actually be harmful.
In the excellent review of the literature, Issue 45: 12 – Pages 2087 – 2090, Alexander Eggermont from Rotterdam briefly reviews the facts, and there is an accompanying editorial by Leif Hakansson (pages 2068 - 2070) from Malmo in Sweden commenting on some potential biological reasons for these adverse effects and postulating approaches to overcome this. A must read for all those involved in developing immunological approaches to the treatment of cancer.