Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced, high-risk breast cancer. Pathological complete response (pCR) improves survival. Peripheral blood-derived indices reflecting systemic inflammation and nutritional status have long been used as predictive and prognostic markers in solid malignancies. This retrospective study investigates whether eight commonly used indices in patients receiving NACT affect pCR and survival. This study includes 624 locally advanced breast cancer patients who received NACT. The biomarker indices were calculated from peripheral blood samples taken two weeks before starting chemotherapy. The indices’ optimal cut-off values were determined using ROC Curve analysis. During a median follow-up period of 42 months, recurrence was detected in 146 patients, and 75 patients died. pCR was observed in 166 patients (26.6%). In univariate analysis, NLR, PLR, SII, PNI, HALP, and HRR were statistically significantly associated (p = 0.00; p = 0.03; p = 0.03; p = 0.02; p = 0.00; p = 0.02 respectively), but in multivariate analysis, only NLR was significantly predictive for pCR(p = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, the HGB/RDW score significantly predicted DFS(p = 0.04). The PNI score was identified as a marker predicting survival for both OS and PFS (p = 0.01, p = 0.01, respectively). In conclusion, peripheral blood-derived indices have prognostic and predictive values on pCR and survival. However, further studies are needed to validate our findings.

Background and Objectives: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive, hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) usually undergo trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) therapy in subsequent lines. Combining endocrine therapy (ET) with T-DM1 can improve treatment outcomes in this subtype. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the benefits of using T-DM1 with ET in HER2-positive and HR-positive MBC. This study was the first to investigate the benefits of combining ET with T-DM1. Material and Methods: This study analyzed the medical records of patients with HER2-positive and HR-positive MBC who were treated with T-DM1 from June 2010 to December 2021. The patients were divided into groups based on whether they received concomitant ET with T-DM1. The primary endpoint was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS), while the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety of the treatment. Results: Our analysis examined 88 patients, of whom 32 (36.4%) were treated with T-DM1 in combination with ET. The combination therapy showed a significant improvement in median PFS (15.4 vs. 6.4 months; p = 0.00004) and median OS (35.0 vs. 23.1 months; p = 0.026) compared to T-DM1 alone. The ORR was also higher in the combination group (65.6% vs. 29.3%; p = 0.026). Patients treated with pertuzumab priorly had reduced median PFS on T-DM1 compared to those who were not treated with pertuzumab (11.7 vs. 5.4 months, respectively; p < 0.01). T-DM1 demonstrated better median PFS in HER2 3+ patients compared to HER2 2+ patients, with an amplification ratio of >2.0 (10.8 vs 5.8 months, respectively; p = 0.049). The safety profiles were consistent with previous T-DM1 studies. Conclusions: The combination of T-DM1 with ET can significantly improve PFS and OS in patients with HER2-positive and HR-positive MBC. Our study suggests that prior pertuzumab treatment plus trastuzumab treatment might decrease T-DM1 efficacy.

Background Uterine leiomyosarcoma is a rare and aggressive malignancy with limited responsiveness to standard therapies. We conducted a real-world, multicenter study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of two commonly used first-line chemotherapy regimens—doxorubicin–ifosfamide and gemcitabine–docetaxel—in patients with metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma. Methods This retrospective cohort included 271 patients with advanced or metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma treated between 2010 and 2023 across 30 centers in Turkey. Patients received either doxorubicin–ifosfamide (n = 142) or gemcitabine–docetaxel (n = 129) as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Adverse events were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0, while survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and further analyzed with Cox proportional hazards models. Results Median overall survival was 19.7 months with doxorubicin–ifosfamide and 20.2 months with gemcitabine–docetaxel (P = .26). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months with doxorubicin–ifosfamide and 7.0 months with gemcitabine–docetaxel (P = .62). The objective response rate was numerically higher with gemcitabine–docetaxel (35% vs. 26%), although not statistically significant (P = .11). Grade 3–4 neutropenia (16% vs. 12%) and febrile neutropenia (7% vs. 6%) were more frequent with doxorubicin–ifosfamide. Conclusions In this largest-to-date real-world cohort of metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma, doxorubicin–ifosfamide and gemcitabine–docetaxel demonstrated comparable survival outcomes. Gemcitabine–docetaxel, however, was associated with a more favorable hematologic safety profile. These findings support the clinical utility of both regimens while underscoring the need for prospective, biomarker-driven studies to refine treatment selection and improve personalization in this rare malignancy.

Objective: The role of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) following curative gastrectomy remains controversial, especially in the context of D2 dissection. This research evaluated survival indicators through an analysis of previous observational studies and it evaluated treatment outcomes between patients who underwent CRT and those who received CT as their sole therapy. Methods: The researchers performed a non-randomized retrospective cohort study which analyzed 206 patients who underwent R0–R1 resection for gastric adenocarcinoma and received either adjuvant CRT (n = 107) or CT alone (n = 99). A Kaplan–Meier analysis together with Cox regression methods were used to evaluate survival outcomes of patients. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for baseline differences between groups at the beginning of the study. The median follow-up was 52.0 months. Results: The baseline characteristics differed markedly between groups, with CRT patients showing higher rates of T4 tumors (34.6% vs. 22.2%), N3 disease (47.7% vs. 26.3%), vascular invasion (72.9% vs. 50.5%), and R1 resection (10.3% vs. 1.0%). Unadjusted survival favored CT alone (median DFS 81.7 vs. 103.9 months; median OS 86.2 months vs. not reached). These differences lost significance after IPTW adjustment (DFS: HR 1.18, p = 0.428; OS: HR 1.24, p = 0.336). T3–T4 stage, N2–N3 nodal status, vascular invasion, and positive margins emerged as independent prognostic factors. Subgroup analyses revealed no treatment interactions (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: The research used a retrospective study design which showed substantial differences between treatment groups at the beginning of the study. The survival results that showed better outcomes for CT alone became attenuated after the researchers applied propensity score adjustment to adjust for confounding from treatment selection. The study established that advanced T–N stage, vascular invasion, and positive margins were identified as independent prognostic factors. The research results are hypothesis-generating and require randomized controlled trials to establish the exact difference in effectiveness between different treatments.