Alpelisib is an α-selective phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor used for treating hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative (HER2–), PIK3CA-mutated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer following disease progression on or after endocrine therapy. Hyperglycemia is an on-target effect of alpelisib affecting approximately 60% of treated patients, and sometimes necessitating dose reductions, treatment interruptions, or discontinuation of alpelisib. Early detection of hyperglycemia and timely intervention have a key role in achieving optimal glycemic control and maintaining alpelisib dose intensity to optimize the benefit of this drug. A glycemic support program implemented by an endocrinology–oncology collaborative team may be very useful in this regard. Lifestyle modifications, mainly comprising a reduced-carbohydrate diet, and a designated stepwise, personalized antihyperglycemic regimen, based on metformin, sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, and pioglitazone, are the main tools required to address the insulin-resistant hyperglycemia induced by alpelisib. In this report, based on the consensus of 14 oncologists and seven endocrinologists, we provide guidance for hyperglycemia management strategies before, during, and after alpelisib therapy for HR+, HER2–, PIK3CA-mutated breast cancer, with a focus on a proactive, multidisciplinary approach.

The incidence of many cancers is higher in Western European (WE) countries, but mortality is frequently higher in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. A panel of oncology leaders from CEE countries participating in the South Eastern European Research Oncology Group (SEEROG) was formed in 2015, aiming to analyze the current status and trends of oncology care in CEE and to propose recommendations leading to improved care and outcomes. The SEEROG panel, meeting during the 11th Central European Oncology Congress, proposed the following: (a) national cancer control plans (NCCPs) required in all CEE countries, defining priorities in cancer care, including finance allocation considering limited health care budgets; (b) national cancer registries, describing in detail epidemiological trends; (c) efforts to strengthen comprehensive cancer centers; (d) that multidisciplinary care should be mandated by the NCCPs; (e) that smaller hospitals should be connected to multidisciplinary tumor boards via the Internet, providing access to specialized expertise; (f) nationwide primary prevention programs targeting smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption and centrally evaluated secondary prevention programs for cervical, colorectal, and breast cancers; (g) prioritize education for all involved in cancer care, including oncology nurses, general practitioners, and palliative care providers; (h) establish outpatient care in day hospitals to reduce costs associated with the current inpatient model of care in CEE countries and to improve patients’ quality of life; (i) long-term pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new therapies in CEE countries; (j) increase national oncology budgets in view of the higher mortality rates in CEE compared with WE countries; and (k) CEE countries urgently need help from the European Union to increase and monitor overall investment in cancer care.

The randomised phase III TANIA trial demonstrated that continuing bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy for locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC) after progression on first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.93]. We report final results from the TANIA trial, including overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC that had progressed on or after first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy were randomised to receive standard second-line chemotherapy either alone or with bevacizumab. At second progression, patients initially randomised to bevacizumab continued bevacizumab with their third-line chemotherapy, but those randomised to chemotherapy alone were not allowed to cross over to receive third-line bevacizumab. The primary end point was second-line PFS; secondary end points included third-line PFS, combined second- and third-line PFS, OS, HRQoL and safety. Of the 494 patients randomised, 483 received second-line therapy; 234 patients (47% of the randomised population) continued to third-line study treatment. The median duration of follow-up at the final analysis was 32.1 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 30.9 months in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy arm. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment arms in third-line PFS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.06), combined second- and third-line PFS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.05) or OS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.21). Third-line safety results showed increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension with bevacizumab, consistent with safety results for the second-line treatment phase. No differences in HRQoL were detected. In this trial, continuing bevacizumab beyond first and second progression of LR/mBC improved second-line PFS, but no improvement in longer term efficacy was observed. The second-line PFS benefit appears to be achieved without detrimentally affecting quality of life. NCT01250379.

Background: There is a steady decline in cancer mortality in Western Europe (WE), but this trend is not so obvious in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). One of the largest discrepancies between WE and CEE is the level of investment in cancer care. The objective of our analysis was to examine the correlation between mortality-to-incidence (M/I) ratio and expenditures on oncology drugs in CEE and WE. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional analysis was done on publicly available data. Data on expenditures for oncology drugs were obtained from QuintilesIMS, and data on M/I ratio from Globocan. The main outcome was mortality-to-incidence ratio, and the primary analysis was performed by Spearman's rank correlation. Results: There is a large discrepancy in expenditure on oncology drugs per cancer case between WE and CEE, and within CEE. Average expenditure on oncology drugs per capita as well as per new cancer case was 2.5 times higher in WE than in CEE. Availability of oncology drugs was highest in Germany (100%), relatively similar in WE (average of 91%), but in CEE it ranged from 37% to 86%, with an average of 70%. Annual expenditures on all oncology drugs per new cancer case was significantly negatively correlated with the M/I ratio (Spearman's ρ = −0.90, p < .001). Conclusion: There is a financial threshold for oncology drugs per cancer case needed to increase survival. Based on significantly lower expenditures for oncology drugs in CEE in comparison with WE, more investment for drugs as well as better, more organized, value- oriented consumption is needed. Implications for Practice: Cancer is not treated equally successfully in Western Europe (WE) and in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This study showed that success in treatment of cancer is associated with the amount of money invested in oncology drugs. CEE countries spend on average 2.5 times less than WE countries for oncology drugs per new cancer case. These findings should be used by health care providers and oncologists struggling for more resources and better, more organized, evidence-based allocation of these resources as well as better oncology outcomes.

Background: Our objective was to assess the effects of COVID-19 antiepidemic measures and subsequent changes in the function of the health care system on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancers in the Republic of Croatia.Subjects, Materials, and Methods: We performed a retrospective, population- and registry-based study during 2020. The comparator was the number of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer during 2017, 2018, and 2019. The outcome was the change in number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases.Results: The average monthly percent change after the initial lockdown measures were introduced was −11.0% (95% confidence interval − 22.0% to 1.5%), resulting in a 24% reduction of the newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Croatia during April, May, and June compared with the same period of 2019. However, during 2020, only 1% fewer new cases were detected than in 2019, or 6% fewer than what would be expected based on the linear trend during 2017–2019.Conclusion: It seems that national health care system measures for controlling the spread of COVID-19 had a detrimental effect on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Croatia during the first lockdown. As it is not plausible to expect an epidemiological change to occur at the same time, this may result in later diagnosis, later initiation of treatment, and less favorable outcomes in the future. However, the effect weakened after the first lockdown and COVID-19 control measures were relaxed, and it has not reoccurred during the second COVID-19 wave. Although the COVID-19 lockdown affected the number of newly diagnosed breast cancers, the oncology health care system has shown resilience and compensated for these effects by the end of 2020.Implications for Practice: It is possible to compensate for the adverse effects of COVID-19 pandemic control measures on breast cancer diagnosis relatively promptly, and it is of crucial importance to do it as soon as possible. Moreover, as shown by this study's results on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases during the second wave of the pandemic, these adverse effects are preventable to a non-negligible extent.