Background: In cases of locally advanced breast cancer (labc), preoperative (“neoadjuvant”) therapy was traditionally reserved to render the patient operable. More recently, neoadjuvant therapy, particularly chemotherapy, is being used in patients with operable disease to increase the opportunity for breast conservation. Despite the increasing use of preoperative chemotherapy, rates of pathologic complete response, a surrogate marker for disease-free survival, remain modest in patients with locally advanced disease and particularly so when the tumour is estrogen or progesterone receptor–positive and her2-negative. A new paradigm for labc patients is needed. In other solid tumours (for example, rectal, esophageal, and lung cancers), concurrent chemoradiotherapy (ccrt) is routinely used in neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment protocols alike. Results: The literature suggests that ccrt in labc patients with inoperable disease is associated with response rates higher than would be anticipated with systemic therapy alone. Conclusions: Ongoing trials in this field are eagerly awaited to determine if ccrt should become the new paradigm.

The approval of CDK4/6 inhibitors has dramatically improved care for the treatment of HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer, but navigating the rapidly-expanding treatment evidence base is challenging. In this narrative review, we provide best-practice recommendations for the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer in Canada based on relevant literature, clinical guidelines, and our own clinical experience. Due to statistically significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, ribociclib + aromatase inhibitor is our preferred first-line treatment for de novo advanced disease or relapse ≥12 months after completion of adjuvant endocrine therapy and ribociclib or abemaciclib + fulvestrant is our preferred first-line treatment for patients experiencing early relapse. Abemaciclib or palbociclib may be used when alternatives to ribociclib are needed, and endocrine therapy can be used alone in the case of contraindication to CDK4/6 inhibitors or limited life expectancy. Considerations for special populations—including frail and fit elderly patients, as well as those with visceral disease, brain metastases, and oligometastatic disease—are also explored. For monitoring, we recommend an approach across CDK4/6 inhibitors. For mutational testing, we recommend routinely performing ER/PR/HER2 testing to confirm the subtype of advanced disease at the time of progression and to consider ESR1 and PIK3CA testing for select patients. Where possible, engage a multidisciplinary care team to apply evidence in a patient-centric manner.

Patients with cancer have higher mortality rates from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),^1-4 particularly those with lung cancer.⁵ Therefore, efforts are ongoing to limit exposure of these patients to the health care system. As a result, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed cancer care provision, but the extent and type of these changes are unknown. The goal of this study was to evaluate the changes in lung cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Traditional medical genetics models are unable to meet the growing demand for germline genetic testing (GT) in patients with exocrine pancreatic cancer (PC). This study investigates the impact of an ambulatory oncology clinic-based GT model. Methods From 2012 to 2021, patients with PC were prospectively enrolled and considered for GT. Two chronological cohorts were compared: (1) the preuniversal genetic testing (pre-UGT) cohort, which received GT based on clinical criteria or family history; and (2) the post-UGT cohort, where an 86-gene panel was offered to all patients with PC. Results Of 847 eligible patients, 735 (86.8%) were enrolled (pre-UGT, n=579; post-UGT, n=156). A higher proportion of the post-UGT cohort received prospective GT (97.4% vs 58.5%, p<0.001). The rate of pathogenic germline alterations (PGA) across both cohorts was 9.9%, with 8.0% of PGAs in PC susceptibility genes. The post-UGT cohort had a higher prevalence of overall PGAs (17.2% vs 6.6%, p<0.001) and PGAs in PC susceptibility genes (11.9% vs 6.3%, p<0.001). The median turnaround time from enrolment to GT report was shorter in the post-UGT cohort (13 days vs 42 days, p<0.001). Probands with a PGA disclosed their GT results to 84% of their first-degree relatives (FDRs). However, only 31% of informed FDRs underwent GT, and the number of new cases per index case was 0.52. Conclusion A point-of-care GT model is feasible and expedites access to GT for patients with PC. Strategies to increase the uptake of cascade testing are needed to maximise the clinical impact of an oncology clinic-based GT model.

Background Approximately 10% of new breast cancer patients will present with overt synchronous metastatic disease. The optimal local management of those patients is controversial. Several series suggest that removal of the primary tumour is associated with a survival benefit, but the retrospective nature of those studies raises considerable methodologic challenges. We evaluated our clinical experience with the management of such patients and, more specifically, the impact of surgery in patients with synchronous metastasis. Methods We reviewed patients with primary breast cancer and concurrent distant metastases seen at our centre between 2005 and 2007. Demographic and treatment data were collected. Study endpoints included overall survival and symptomatic local progression rates. Results The 111 patients identified had a median follow-up of 40 months (range: 0.6–71 months). We allocated the patients to one of two groups: a nonsurgical group (those who did not have breast surgery, n = 63) and a surgical group (those who did have surgery, n = 48, 29 of whom had surgery before the metastatic diagnosis). When compared with patients in the nonsurgical group, patients in the surgical group were less likely to present with T4 tumours (23% vs. 35%), N3 nodal disease (8% vs. 19%), and visceral metastasis (67% vs. 73%). Patients in the surgical group experienced longer overall survival (49 months vs. 33 months, p = 0.01) and lower rates of symptomatic local progression (14% vs. 44%, p < 0.001). Conclusions In our study, improved overall survival and symptomatic local control were demonstrated in the surgically treated patients; however, this group had less aggressive disease at presentation. The optimal local management of patients with metastatic breast cancer remains unknown. An ongoing phase III trial, E2108, has been designed to assess the effect of breast surgery in metastatic patients responding to first-line systemic therapy. If excision of the primary tumour is associated with a survival benefit, then the preselected subgroup of patients who have responded to initial systemic therapy is the desired population in which to put this hypothesis to the test.