Browsing by Author "Kim, SB"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

5th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 5)
(Elsevier Ltd., 2020) Cardoso, F; Paluch-Shimon, S; Senkus, E; Curigliano, G; Aapro, MS; André, F; Barrios, CH; Bergh, J; Bhattacharyya, GS; Biganzoli, L; Boyle, F; Cardoso, MJ; Carey, LA; Cortés, J; El Saghir, NS; Elzayat, M; Eniu, A; Fallowfield, L; Francis, PA; Gelmon, K; Gligorov, J; Haidinger, R; Harbeck, N; Hu, X; Kaufman, B; Kaur, R; Kiely, BE; Kim, SB; Lin, NU; Mertz, SA; Neciosup, SO; ffersen, BV; Ohno, S; Pagani, O; Prat, A; Penault-Llorca, F; Rugo, HS; Sledge, GW; Thomssen, C; Vorobiof, DA; Wiseman ,T; Xu, B; Norton, L; Costa, A; Winer, EP
This ESO-ESMO ABC 5 Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations for managing advanced breast cancer patients. It provides updates on managing patients with all breast cancer subtypes, LABC, follow-up, palliative and supportive care. Updated diagnostic and treatment algorithms are also provided. All recommendations were compiled by a multidisciplinary group of international experts. Recommendations are based on available clinical evidence and the collective expert opinion of the authors.
Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer: A cross-sectional survey of physicians
(Frontiers Media S.A., 2023) Baek, SY; Lee, KH; Kim, SB; Gomez, HL; Vidaurre, T; Park, YH; Ahn, HK; Kim, YS; Park, IH; Ahn, SG; Lee, J; Jeong, JH; Kim, S; Kim, HJ
Background: Fertility is an important issue for young women with breast cancer, but studies about physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward fertility preservation (FP) are largely based on Western populations and do not reflect recent international guidelines for FP. In this international study, we aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of physicians from South Korea, other Asian countries, and Latin America toward FP in young women with breast cancer, and identify the related barriers. Methods: The survey was conducted anonymously among physicians from South Korea, other Asian countries, and Latin America involved in breast cancer care between November 2020 and July 2021. Topics included knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions toward FP; practice behaviors; barriers; and participant demographics. We grouped related questions around two main themes—discussion with patients about FP, and consultation and referral to a reproductive endocrinologist. We analyzed the relationships between main questions and other survey items. Results: A total of 151 physicians completed the survey. Most participants’ overall knowledge about FP was good. More than half of the participants answered that they discussed FP with their patients in most cases, but that personnel to facilitate discussions about FP and the provision of educational materials were limited. A major barrier was time constraints in the clinic (52.6%). Discussion, consultations, and referrals were more likely to be performed by surgeons who primarily treated patients with operable breast cancer (FP discussion odds ratio [OR]: 2.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–6.79; FP consultation and referral OR: 2.98; 95% CI: 1.14–7.74). Participants’ knowledge and attitudes about FP were significantly associated with discussion, consultations, and referrals. Conclusion: Physicians from South Korea, other Asian countries, and Latin America are knowledgeable about FP and most perform practice behaviors toward FP well. Physicians’ knowledge and favorable attitudes are significantly related to discussion with patients, as well as consultation with and referral to reproductive endocrinologists. However, there are also barriers, such as limitations to human resources and materials, suggesting a need for a systematic approach to improve FP for young women with breast cancer.
Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study
(Elsevier BV, 2021) Sun, JM; Shen, L; Shah, MA; Enzinger, P; Adenis, A; Doi, T; Kojima, T; Metges, JP; Li, Z; Kim, SB; Cho, BC; Mansoor, W; Li, SH; Sunpaweravong, P; Maqueda, MA; Goekkurt, E; Hara, H; Antunes, L; Fountzilas, C; Tsuji, A; Castro-Oliden, V; Liu Q; Shah S; Bhagia P; Kato K; KEYNOTE-590 Investigators.
Background: First-line therapy for advanced oesophageal cancer is currently limited to fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the antitumour activity of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in advanced oesophageal cancer and Siewert type 1 gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. Methods: We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study across 168 medical centres in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, histologically or cytologically confirmed, locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic oesophageal cancer or Siewert type 1 gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (regardless of PD-L1 status), measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (chemotherapy), once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, histology, and performance status. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to group assignment and PD-L1 biomarker status. Primary endpoints were overall survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or more, and overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, and in all randomised patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03189719, and is closed to recruitment. Findings: Between July 25, 2017, and June 3, 2019, 1020 patients were screened and 749 were enrolled and randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=373 [50%]) or placebo plus chemotherapy (n=376 [50%]). At the first interim analysis (median follow-up of 22·6 months), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior to placebo plus chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more (median 13·9 months vs 8·8 months; hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·43-0·75]; p<0·0001), oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (12·6 months vs 9·8 months; 0·72 [0·60-0·88]; p=0·0006), PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more (13·5 months vs 9·4 months; 0·62 [0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001), and in all randomised patients (12·4 months vs 9·8 months; 0·73 [0·62-0·86]; p<0·0001). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior to placebo plus chemotherapy for progression-free survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (6·3 months vs 5·8 months; 0·65 [0·54-0·78]; p<0·0001), PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more (7·5 months vs 5·5 months; 0·51 [0·41-0·65]; p<0·0001), and in all randomised patients (6·3 months vs 5·8 months; 0·65 [0·55-0·76]; p<0·0001). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 266 (72%) patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 250 (68%) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Interpretation: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated, advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, and overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, and in all randomised patients regardless of histology, and had a manageable safety profile in the total as-treated population.