The 5-year survival rate of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is around 5% due to the fact that the majority of patients present with advanced disease that is treatment resistant. Familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) is a rare disorder that is defined as a family with at least two affected first degree relatives, with an estimated incidence of 4%-10%. The genetic basis is unknown in the majority of families although around 10%-13% of families carry germline mutations in known genes associated with hereditary cancer and pancreatitis syndromes. Panel sequencing was performed of 35 genes associated with hereditary cancer in 43 PDAC cases from families with an apparent hereditary pancreatic cancer syndrome. Pathogenic variants were identified in 19% (5/26) of PDAC cases from pure FPC families in the genes MLH1, CDKN2A, POLQ and FANCM. Low frequency potentially pathogenic VUS were also identified in 35% (9/26) of PDAC cases from FPC families in the genes FANCC, MLH1, PMS2, CFTR, APC and MUTYH. Furthermore, an important proportion of PDAC cases harboured more than one pathogenic, likely pathogenic or potentially pathogenic VUS, highlighting the multigene phenotype of FPC. The genetic basis of familial or hereditary pancreatic cancer can be explained in 21% of families by previously described hereditary cancer genes. Low frequency variants in other DNA repair genes are also present in 35% of families which may contribute to the risk of pancreatic cancer development. This study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Plan Estatal de I + D + i 2013-2016): ISCIII (PI09/02221, PI12/01635, PI15/02101 and PI18/1034) and co-financed by the European Development Regional Fund ''A way to achieve Europe'' (ERDF), the Biomedical Research Network in Cancer: CIBERONC (CB16/12/00446), Red Temática de investigación cooperativa en cáncer: RTICC (RD12/0036/0073) and La Asociación Española contra el Cáncer: AECC (Grupos Coordinados Estables 2016).

Patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract (TCCU) who fail initial platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced disease represent a challenge in daily clinical practice. Vinflunine is approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) but, up to now, limited experience has been reported outside clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy and safety of vinflunine in an unselected group of 102 consecutive patients with metastatic TCCU. The median age was 67 years (range 45–83). Among the most common comorbidities that patients presented at baseline were hypertension (50.5%) and diabetes (20.7%). Distant metastases were present in retroperitoneal nodes (58%), lung (29.3%), and bone (20.2%). The ECOG 0, 1 and 2 performance status at the start of vinflunine were 31.3%, 60.6% and 8.1%, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events of any grade were constipation 70.6% (5.9% grade 3–4), vomiting 49.1% (2% grade 3–4), neutropenia 48.1% (12.8% grade 3–4) and abdominal pain 34.3% (4.9% grade 3–4). A median of 4 cycles of vinflunine was administered per patient (range 1–18). Median progression free and overall survival for all patients (N = 102) were 3.9 months (2.3-5.5) and 10 months (7.3-12.8), respectively. Time to tumor progression was 4.3 months (2.6-5.9). Two patients (2%) achieved CR, 23 (22.5%) patients had PR, and 42 (41.2%) presented SD as best response. The clinical benefit rate with vinflunine was 65.7%. Our results show that the behavior of vinflunine in routine clinical practice resembles that of the pivotal phase III randomized study.

Pazopanib is indicated in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). The aim of this study was to review the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib and see how these aspects are linked to clinical practice. A non-exhaustive systematic review was conducted according to the three topics. No publication restrictions were imposed and the selected languages were Spanish and English. After that, a summary of the main results and findings of the review was presented and discussed during three meetings (one for each topic) with 13 medical oncologists that usually treat mRCC. At these meetings, a questionnaire on the first-line use of pazopanib in clinical practice was also drawn up. After the meetings, the questionnaire was completed by 60 specialist medical oncologists in renal cancer. The efficacy and safety of pazopanib have been demonstrated in several clinical trials, and subsequently confirmed in studies in real-world clinical practice. In addition to its clinical benefit and good safety profile, quality of life results for pazopanib, which compare favorably to sunitinib, make it a good option in the first-line treatment of patients. Special populations have been included in studies conducted with pazopanib, and it is safe for use in elderly patients, poor functional status, kidney failure, and mild or moderate hepatic impairment, and in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease. The results of the questionnaire have shown that pazopanib is perceived as an effective drug, in which quality of life (QoL) outcomes are valued above all. This paper offers a comprehensive and critical summary of efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib in the treatment of mRCC. Pazopanib is an effective treatment with an acceptable safety profile. Its QoL and tolerability results offer certain advantages when compared with other therapeutic alternatives, and its use appears to be safe in different patient profiles.

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer syndrome (HLRCC) is a very rare hereditary disorder characterized by cutaneous leiomyomas (CLMs), uterine leiomyomas (ULMs), renal cysts (RCys) and renal cell cancers (RCCs). We aimed to describe the genetics, clinical features and potential genotype-phenotype associations in the largest cohort of fumarate hydratase enzyme mutation carriers known from Spain using a multicentre, retrospective study of individuals with a genetic or clinical diagnosis of HLRCC. We collected clinical information from medical records, analysed genetic variants and looked for genotype-phenotype associations. Analyses were performed using R 3.6.0. software. We included 197 individuals: 74 index cases and 123 relatives. CLMs were diagnosed in 65% of patients, ULMs in 90% of women, RCys in 37% and RCC in 10.9%. Twenty-seven different pathogenic variants were detected, 12 (44%) of them not reported previously. Patients with missense pathogenic variants showed higher frequencies of CLMs, ULMs and RCys, than those with loss-of-function variants (p = 0.0380, p = 0.0015 and p = 0.024, respectively). This is the first report of patients with HLRCC from Spain. The frequency of RCCs was lower than those reported in the previously published series. Individuals with missense pathogenic variants had higher frequencies of CLMs, ULMs and RCys.

Introduction: Mammographic density (MD) is one of the strongest determinants of sporadic breast cancer (BC). In this study, we compared MD in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families and investigated the association between MD and BC among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers per type of mutation and tumor subtype. Methods: The study was carried out in 1039 female members of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-positive families followed at 16 Spanish Genetic Counseling Units. Participants’ density was scored retrospectively from available mammograms by a single blinded radiologist using a 5-category scale (75 %). In BC cases, we selected mammograms taken prior to diagnosis or from the contralateral breast, whereas, in non-cases, the last screening mammogram was evaluated. MD distribution in carriers and non-carriers was compared using ordinal logistic models, and the association between MD and BC in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was studied using logistic regression. Huber-White robust estimators of variance were used to take into account correlations between family members. A similar multinomial model was used to explore this association by BC subtype. Results: We identified and scored mammograms from 341 BRCA1, 350 BRCA2 mutation carriers and 229 non-carriers. Compared to non-carriers, MD was significantly lower among BRCA2 mutation carriers (odds ratio (OR) =0.71; P-value=0.04), but not among BRCA1 carriers (OR=0.84; P-value=0.33). MD was associated with subsequent development BC (OR per category of MD=1.45; 95 % confidence interval=1.18-1.78, P-value<0.001), with no significant differences between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (P-value=0.48). Finally, no statistically significant differences were observed in the association of MD with specific BC subtypes. Conclusions: Our study, the largest to date on this issue, confirms that MD is an independent risk factor for all BC subtypes in either BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and should be considered a phenotype risk marker in this context.