PURPOSE: Fertility and pregnancy-related issues are highly relevant for young (≤ 40 years) patients with breast cancer. Limited evidence exists on knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) regarding these issues. METHODS: A 19-item questionnaire adapted from an international survey exploring issues about fertility preservation and pregnancy after breast cancer was sent by e-mail between November 2019 and January 2020 to physicians from LMICs involved in breast cancer care. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 288 physicians from Asia, Africa, America, and Europe completed the survey. Median age was 38 years. Responders were mainly medical oncologists (44.4%) working in an academic setting (46.9%). Among responders, 40.2% and 53.8% reported having never consulted the available international guidelines on fertility preservation and pregnancy after breast cancer, respectively. 25.0%, 19.1%, and 24.3% of responders answered to be not at all knowledgeable about embryo, oocyte, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively; 29.2%, 23.6%, and 31.3% declared that embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation were not available in their countries, respectively. 57.6% of responders disagreed or were neutral on the statement that controlled ovarian stimulation can be considered safe in patients with breast cancer. 49.7% and 58.6% of responders agreed or were neutral on the statement that pregnancy in breast cancer survivors may increase the risk of recurrence overall or only in those with hormone receptor–positive disease, respectively. CONCLUSION: This survey showed suboptimal knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians from LMICs on fertility preservation and pregnancy after treatment completion in young women with breast cancer. Increasing awareness and education on these aspects are needed to improve adherence to available guidelines and to promote patients' oncofertility counseling.

Background: About 10,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and about 2000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year in Romania. There is an insufficient number of genetic studies in the Romanian population to identify patients at high risk of inherited breast and ovarian cancer. Methods: We evaluated 250 women of Romanian ethnicity with BC and 240 women of Romanian ethnicity with ovarian cancer for the presence of damaging germline mutations in breast cancer genes 1 and 2 (BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively) using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. Results: Of the 250 breast cancer patients, 47 carried a disease-predisposing BRCA mutation (30 patients (63.83%) with a BRCA1 mutation and 17 patients (36.17%) with a BRCA2 mutation). Of the 240 ovarian cancer patients, 60 carried a BRCA mutation (43 patients (72%) with a BRCA1 mutation and 17 patients (28%) with a BRCA2 mutation). In the BRCA1 gene, we identified 18 variants (4 in both patient groups (ovarian and breast cancer patients), 1 mutation variant in the BC patient group, and 13 mutation variants in the ovarian cancer patient group). In the BRCA2 gene, we identified 17 variants (1 variant in both ovarian and breast cancer patients, 6 distinct variants in BC patients, and 10 distinct variants in ovarian cancer patients). The prevailing mutation variants identified were c.3607C>T (BRCA1) (18 cases) followed by c.5266dupC (BRCA1) (17 cases) and c.9371A>T (BRCA2) (12 cases). The most prevalent mutation, BRCA1 c.3607C>T, which is less common in the Romanian population, was mainly associated with triple-negative BC and ovarian serous adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: The results of our analysis may help to establish specific variants of BRCA mutations in the Romanian population and identify individuals at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome by genetic testing.

Implementation of national cancer policy is frequently shaped by medical guidelines. These guidelines often lack detail addressing the intricate care needs of vulnerable groups such as older adults, hindering the potential impact of these policies. To provide an overview of the representation of older adults in European cancer guidelines to identify areas for improvement. A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework and Levac et al. extension. The search strategy was developed for grey literature (i.e. guidelines) for the five most prevalent primary malignancies (prostate, breast, colorectal, lung, and urinary bladder) in 29 countries (member states of the European Union, Switzerland, and the UK). Data were extracted by a national expert and at least one other reviewer. A total of 187 guideline reports from 31 jurisdictions were analysed, encompassing general cancer care and selected primary malignancies. The representation of older adults varied by cancer type and region. Dedicated guidelines for older adults were uncommon, with only a few jurisdictions, such as France and Spain, providing age-specific recommendations for certain malignancies. Although some national guidelines addressed older patients, this focus was inconsistent both across different cancers and within the guidelines of the same country. There is limited representation of geriatric oncology across European cancer guidelines. To enhance representative guideline development, there is a call for greater consideration of older adults’ unique needs. Suggestions include further guidance on the implementation of the comprehensive geriatric assessment and consequent treatment across neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is one of the leading societies of oncology professionals in the world. Approximately 30% of the 13 000 ESMO members are below the age of 40 and thus meet the society's definition of young oncologists (YOs). ESMO has identified the training and development of YOs as a priority and has therefore established a comprehensive career development programme. This includes a leadership development programme to help identify and develop the future leaders in oncology. Well-trained and highly motivated future generations of multidisciplinary oncologists are essential to ensure the optimal evolution of the field of oncology with the ultimate goal of providing the best possible care to patients with cancer. ESMO's career development portfolio is managed and continuously optimised by several dedicated committees composed of ESMO officers and is directly supervised by the ESMO Executive Board and the ESMO President. It offers unique resources for YOs at all stages of training and includes a broad variety of fellowship opportunities, educational courses, scientific meetings, publications and resources. In this article, we provide an overview of the activities and career development opportunities provided by ESMO to the next generation of oncologists.

The addition of platinum compounds to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for triple‑negative breast cancer (TNBC) is highly controversial. Platinum agents, such as cisplatin and carboplatin, are DNA‑damaging agents which exhibit activity in breast cancer, particularly in the TNBC subgroup. In order to assess the efficacy of each most representative platinum agent (cisplatin and carboplatin) in patients with TNBC treated with NACT, the present study performed a systematic review and meta‑analysis of all available published studies on TNBC. A search of PubMed was performed to identify studies that investigated platinum‑based NACT in patients with TNBC. The primary endpoints were the pooled rate of the pathological complete response (pCR) between cisplatin vs. carboplatin‑based NACT. A total of 24 studies were selected (17 studies for carboplatin and 6 studies for cisplatin and 1 study with both carboplatin and cisplatin, with 20 prospective studies) for the analysis of 1,711 patients with TNBC. Overall, the pooled rate of pCR in patients treated with platinum‑based NACT was 48%. No significant differences were observed between the rates of pCR obtained under carboplatin vs cisplatin treatment. The carboplatin pCR rate was 0.470 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.401‑0.539], while the cisplatin pCR rate was 0.473 (95% CI, 0.379‑0.568). The comparison between these two categories revealed no significant differences (P=0.959). In the whole, the present study demonstrates that neoadjuvant platinum‑based chemotherapy improves the pCR rate in patients with TNBC, regardless of the platinum agent used. Carboplatin may thus represent a viable option due to its more favorable toxicity profile.

Background/Objective: The global burden of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers is rising sharply among the elderly, with a projected doubling of incidence and mortality by 2050. Given the heterogeneity of aging and the limitations of traditional performance scales such as ECOG or KPS, integrating geriatric assessment (GA) into oncology has become essential for tailoring safe and effective treatment strategies in this population. This paper provides a practical framework for implementing geriatric assessment and management (GAM) in GI oncology, particularly in resource-limited settings, and highlights validated screening instruments suitable for clinical integration. Methods: A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for publications between January 2019 and August 2025 using combinations of the keywords geriatric assessment, gastrointestinal cancer, frailty screening, elderly, oncology, and comprehensive geriatric assessment. International and regional clinical practice guidelines from ASCO, ESMO, and SIOG were reviewed in detail. Articles were included when they addressed validated screening tools, oncology focused strategies, or clinical outcomes associated with GA-based interventions. Studies focusing exclusively on non-oncologic geriatric populations were excluded. Relevant data were extracted regarding study design, population, tool validation, predictive performance, and feasibility. Results: GA improves prediction of treatment-related toxicity, supports individualized treatment planning, and enhances quality of life and functional outcomes. Two-step screening approaches, initial frailty screening followed by comprehensive geriatric assessment for those with positive results, were found most effective. Practical GA models and telehealth-based applications were identified as feasible even in low- and middle-income contexts. Conclusions: Integrating GA into GI oncology fosters patient-centered, evidence-based care that optimizes treatment tolerance, reduces complications, and aligns therapeutic goals with patient values. Institutional commitment, interdisciplinary collaboration, and targeted training are pivotal for establishing GA as a standard of care across diverse healthcare settings.