Cancer treatment reviews最新文献

{"title":"Clinical course and treatment outcomes in solid-basaloid adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast: A systematic review and case report","authors":"Stephanie Kim ,&nbsp;Kyle Sheth ,&nbsp;Xiaoying Yu ,&nbsp;Laura Porterfield ,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Vaughan","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103028","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103028","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma (ACC) is a rare, indolent subtype of triple-negative breast cancer, accounting for &lt; 0.1 % of cases. The solid-basaloid subtype (SBACC), comprising approximately one-quarter of breast ACCs, has a poorer prognosis. While ACC is typically managed with surgery and is chemo-resistant, SBACC is more aggressive and often treated with chemotherapy and, more recently, immunotherapy—though supporting evidence remains limited.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To assess clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of SBACC of the breast.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study presents a case of breast SBACC and a systematic review of five databases (inception–September 10, 2024). Eligible studies reported clinical course, treatment, and outcomes. Exclusions included duplicates, non-SBACC focus, animal studies, and those lacking clinical or with only pathological data. Descriptive statistics were used for binary and categorical variables. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI tools, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The review is registered in PROSPERO.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Nineteen studies and one new case (134 patients, aged 19–89) were included. Except for three patients who had with metastatic disease at diagnosis, the rest (97 %) were treated with surgery; 55.6 % received chemotherapy. Among nine patients given neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy, none achieved complete pathological response, and most had poor outcomes. In non-metastatic cases with reported treatment (n = 99), younger age predicted recurrence (p = 0.032) but not chemotherapy receipt (p = 0.082). Chemotherapy did not reduce recurrence risk (p = 0.819). Mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with radiation had similar outcomes (p = 0.197).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Although limited data are available for this rare cancer, evidence for the efficacy of chemotherapy and immunotherapy for SBACC treatment is lacking. Treatment plans should be individualized to reduce the physical, psychological, and financial burdens on both patients and healthcare systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"141 ","pages":"Article 103028"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145360768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI-H) in rectal cancer patients treated with standard neoadjuvant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Gianluca Ricco ,&nbsp;Chiara Gallio ,&nbsp;Nada Benhima ,&nbsp;Irene Assaf ,&nbsp;Jean-Luc Van Laethem ,&nbsp;Francesco Sclafani","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103039","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103039","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Mismatch repair deficiency or microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI-H) is an established biomarker in early-stage colon cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer. However, its prognostic significance in early-stage rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy remains uncertain. We aimed to fill this gap by conducting a systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis of the available evidence. PubMed, Embase and Scopus were systematically searched from inception to 11/03/2025 for studies comparing the outcome of dMMR/MSI-H and MMR proficient/microsatellite stable (pMMR/MSS) rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors were excluded. Data on pathologic complete response (pCR), pathologic tumor regression grade (pTRG), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated using a random effects model. After screening 705 records, 26 retrospective studies were included, the majority of patients being treated with long-course chemoradiotherapy. There was a significant association between dMMR/MSI-H status and pCR (OR 1.50 [95 % CI: 1.04–2.14]; p = 0.03), while no association was found for pTRG (OR 0.77 [95 % CI: 0.44–1.34]; p = 0.326), DFS (HR 1.00 [95 % CI: 0.50–2.01]; p = 0.998) and OS (HR 1.42 [95 % CI: 1.00–2.01]; p = 0.051). Despite the limited data, subgroup analyses did not appear to reveal any significant difference by type of neoadjuvant treatment. In conclusion, patients with dMMR/MSI-H rectal cancer treated with standard neoadjuvant therapy are more likely to achieve a pCR than those with pMMR/MSS tumors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"141 ","pages":"Article 103039"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145411035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing lung function in women treated for breast cancer with radiotherapy. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"N. Daga-Guijarro ,&nbsp;N.S. Diciolla ,&nbsp;M.J. Yuste-Sánchez","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103027","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103027","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Radiotherapy is associated with pulmonary fibrosis in 5–15% of cases, potentially impacting lung function and thus the quality of life of patients with breast cancer. This study aimed to assess short, middle, and long-term effects of radiotherapy on lung function in women treated for breast cancer.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>A thorough literature search of databases (Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL) up to October 2024 was conducted. Included were observational, experimental, and quasi-experimental studies assessing radiotherapy effects on lung function in women treated for breast cancer. A <em>meta</em>-analysis summarised findings, and risk of bias (Cochrane ROBINS-E) and quality of evidence (GRADE framework) were assessed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-two studies totalled 1042 women, of median age 51 years [range 44–56]. Radiotherapy administered conventionally (46–58 Gy, 1.8–2.2 Gy/fraction, 23–28 sessions, 5 days/week, 5 weeks) or hypo-fractionated (40–43.2 Gy, 2.7–2.8 Gy/fraction, 15–16 sessions, 5 days/week, 3 weeks), resulted in significant declines in FEV₁%predicted, FVC%predicted, and DLCO%predicted at one-, three-, six-, and 12-months post-radiotherapy. Clinically relevant reductions (≥5%) were noted for FEV₁%predicted at one and 12 months (MD[95 %CI) = −7.94[−13.94; −1.93], −5.10[−8.81; −1.39], respectively), FVC%predicted at one, six, and 12 months (−5.98[−11.78; −0.17], −5.90[−9.01; −2.79], −5.58[−9.32;−1.83], respectively), and DLCO%predicted at one, three, and 12 months (−8.00[−15.66; −0.34], −5.51[−7.91; −3.11], −6.76 [−10.27; −3.25], respectively). Risk of bias was low in 64 %, moderate in 14 %, and high in 23 % of studies. GRADE assessment indicated moderate level of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Radiotherapy may affect lung function in women treated for breast cancer, especially in the absence of lung-sparing techniques, resulting in declines persisting up to 12 months post-radiation. However, heterogeneity in patient characteristics and treatment protocols among studies warrants cautious interpretation of these findings. This highlights the need for enhanced monitoring and supportive pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in this patient group.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"141 ","pages":"Article 103027"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145326590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in thyroid cancer: A systematic review","authors":"Jennifer Tasong,&nbsp;Rocco Sheldon,&nbsp;Avi Clements,&nbsp;Muhammad Temour Abid,&nbsp;Andrew Gan","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103042","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103042","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Thyroid cancer incidence has risen in recent years, with high mortality rates in aggressive subtypes. Clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), indicate efficacy against a range of solid tumours. However, their role in the thyroid remains to be established. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD420250634944) assesses the effectiveness and safety of ICIs in thyroid cancer, reported following PRISMA guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Searches were performed in 6 databases (EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science and <span><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>) from inception to 10th January 2025. All studies reporting efficacy outcomes for ICIs in thyroid cancer were included. Clinical trials databases were searched for the most recent results and ongoing trials. Study quality was assessed using the CASP checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 1,207 studies retrieved, 33 met the inclusion criteria. Of these trials, 14 investigated ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and 5 studies each evaluated dual ICI combinations, ICI monotherapy, or ICIs plus chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Included studies reported variable efficacy and safety. Studies in anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) using biomarker-stratified ICI combinations demonstrated the greatest effectiveness. The safety profiles were generally manageable, with common adverse events including fatigue, anorexia, and increased lipase levels.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>ICIs show promising responses in thyroid cancer, particularly in ATC. However, the current evidence is limited to non-randomised phase I-II studies, and no phase III trials have been conducted to date. Further investigation in larger, placebo-controlled trials is required to assess efficacy in clinical practice. Predictive biomarkers can help identify patients who may experience the greatest clinical benefit, maximising cost-effectiveness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"141 ","pages":"Article 103042"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145454253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interpreting immunogenicity in oncology clinical trials","authors":"Peter R. Galle ,&nbsp;Martin Reck ,&nbsp;David J. Pinato ,&nbsp;Rosario Garcia-Campelo ,&nbsp;Richard S. Finn ,&nbsp;Sophie Cousin ,&nbsp;Jim Zanghi ,&nbsp;Coen A. Bernaards ,&nbsp;Steven J. Swanson ,&nbsp;Stefanie Morris ,&nbsp;Yuan Song ,&nbsp;Solange Peters","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103016","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103016","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Immunogenicity of a therapeutic protein product may elicit an unintended immune response, and is a critical aspect evaluated in oncology clinical trials. The development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) can impact the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety of these therapies. We review the background and nomenclature of immunogenicity assessment in oncology studies and emphasize the complexities in ADA detection arising from assay sensitivity, drug interference, and notably, the frequency of patient sampling for ADA analysis. The applicability of common nomenclature, however, has limitations in the context of oncology. Of prime consideration for physicians is that the clinical impact of ADA is far more important than just their presence. Furthermore, the interpretation of immunogenicity data in oncology is complicated by patient-specific factors, concomitant treatments, and potential survivorship bias. Regulatory guidelines acknowledge these complexities, mandating specific statements on product labels cautioning against cross-trial comparisons of ADA incidence due to variations in assay methods and sampling schedules. Accurate interpretation of immunogenicity data, considering assay methodologies, study design, and sampling frequency, is crucial for clinicians to assess the clinical relevance of ADA findings and make informed treatment decisions for patients receiving therapeutic protein products in oncology. The focus should be on the clinical relevance of ADAs rather than simply their incidence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 103016"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144920380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Impact of brain metastases on systemic renal cell carcinoma treatment outcomes: A systematic literature review","authors":"Natalie Charnley ,&nbsp;Kate Fife ,&nbsp;Daniel Y.C. Heng ,&nbsp;James Larkin ,&nbsp;John McGrane ,&nbsp;Sylvie Négrier ,&nbsp;Naveen Vasudev ,&nbsp;Balaji Venugopal ,&nbsp;Alison Chisholm ,&nbsp;Alessia Ogareva ,&nbsp;Áine Prendergast ,&nbsp;Laurence Albiges","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103024","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103024","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Brain metastases (BrM) are a negative prognostic factor in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) populations. Patients with RCC and BrM (RCC BrM + ) may receive systemic therapy and/or brain-targeted (local) treatment. We performed a systematic literature review to identify clinical trials and non-interventional studies reporting data on BrM impact on systemic treatment outcomes in patients with RCC.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We systematically searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases in January 2024 for publications reporting efficacy/effectiveness and/or safety/tolerability outcomes by BrM status from phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials and non-interventional studies of systemic RCC therapies. Data were extracted from publications meeting predefined criteria (PROSPERO registration, CRD42023494896) and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty-two publications (of 651 screened) were eligible (4 from prospective trials) and included 4,637 patients with RCC BrM + treated with systemic therapy. The most evaluated systemic therapies were sunitinib, nivolumab, ipilimumab + nivolumab, cabozantinib and sorafenib. Tolerability was generally consistent with known safety profiles in RCC trial populations. In the clinical trials, systemic treatment benefits for patients with RCC BrM + were equivocal. In non-interventional studies, survival was generally poorer in patients with RCC BrM + than reference groups (overall/BrM–). Survival and intracranial control benefits in patients with RCC BrM + were reported for some multimodal (systemic plus local) treatment strategies. There were no robust comparative data to guide systemic treatment selection.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>We identified a need for robust data on intracranial and extracranial responses to systemic therapy in patients with RCC BrM+, taking into account prior local therapy exposure.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 103024"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145154792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Genomic distinctions in adolescent and young adult cancer: A comprehensive review","authors":"Jeffrey van Putten ,&nbsp;Lina H. Lankhorst ,&nbsp;Adrianus Johannes de Langen ,&nbsp;Anthonie J. van der Wekken ,&nbsp;Jeanine Roodhart ,&nbsp;Karen Bolhuis ,&nbsp;Sjoukje F. Oosting ,&nbsp;Marloes van Dongen ,&nbsp;Marleen Kok ,&nbsp;Marjolein Geurts ,&nbsp;Johan A.F. Koekkoek ,&nbsp;Edwin Cuppen ,&nbsp;Hilde H. Nienhuis ,&nbsp;Winette T.A. van der Graaf","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103021","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103021","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) represents a unique biological intersection, encompassing malignancies typical of both paediatric and older adults, as well as age-specific cancers. Yet, diagnostic and treatment approaches are not tailored to AYAs, potentially overlooking age-specific molecular characteristics. This review examines genomic differences between AYAs and paediatric and older patients, emphasising trends in cancer driver genes and identifying knowledge gaps that limit our understanding of AYA cancer biology.</div><div>Across studies and cancer types, the AYA age range varies but is typically defined as 15–39 years. Remarkably, for nearly half of cancers diagnosed in AYAs, little or no literature exists on genomic differences or similarities compared to other age groups. Common cancers like testicular cancer and gynaecological cancer are underrepresented, while other typical AYA cancers such as thyroid cancer entirely lack comparative literature. In contrast, less common AYA cancers such as lung cancer and colorectal cancer are investigated extensively. Although genomic differences are reported across cancer types and in pan-cancer analyses, findings are often not generalisable to relevant subtypes or inconsistent, and insights gained are limited by the use of single-gene assays or small gene panels.</div><div>This review reveals an imbalance between the global incidence of AYA cancers and the scope of comparative genomic studies, as well as a lack of broader comprehensive molecular profiling. Addressing these gaps through broader genomic research, particularly in underexplored cancers, is essential to determine whether AYA tumour biology is indeed distinctive, and how age-appropriate, genomics-driven precision oncology should be delivered.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 103021"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145154793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparative review of KEYNOTE-689 and NIVOPOSTOP trials and their impact on perioperative immunotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer","authors":"Yoshinori Imamura ,&nbsp;Masafumi Kanno ,&nbsp;Shigeharu Fujieda","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103018","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103018","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To critically review the emerging evidence from two randomised trials—KEYNOTE-689 and NIVOPOSTOP—on perioperative immune checkpoint inhibition in resectable, locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and to elucidate how these positive results may redefine the current and future treatment paradigms.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a narrative review comparing the design, patient populations, treatment protocols, and outcomes of KEYNOTE-689 and NIVOPOSTOP. Data sources included <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, presentations at major international oncology meetings, and peer-reviewed publications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>KEYNOTE-689 adopted a broad perioperative strategy using pembrolizumab both pre- and postoperatively, with (chemo)radiotherapy administered based on pathological risk. NIVOPOSTOP employed a focused adjuvant approach, using nivolumab alongside postoperative chemoradiotherapy only in high-risk patients. Despite distinct strategies, both trials demonstrated significant improvements in event-free survival (KEYNOTE-689; hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–0.92) and disease-free survival (NIVOPOSTOP; hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.98). KEYNOTE-689 reduced distant recurrence, while NIVOPOSTOP improved loco-regional control. Although overall survival data remain immature, both show favourable trends. Treatment adherence and treatment-related serious adverse events were lower in KEYNOTE-689.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Perioperative immune checkpoint inhibition is emerging as the first new standard in two decades for resectable locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-689 highlights early immune priming, whereas NIVOPOSTOP offers a pragmatic, high-risk–targeted model with high compliance. Treatment selection should be tailored by recurrence risk, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, and multidisciplinary evaluation. Future priorities include refining patient selection and immune checkpoint blockade schedule, optimizing neoadjuvant regimens, implementing response-adapted de-escalation, and assessing cost-effectiveness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 103018"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144932627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Overcoming the barriers to treatment of rare cancer patients in the era of precision oncology: A call to action","authors":"Winette T.A. van der Graaf ,&nbsp;Nina S. Heiss ,&nbsp;Carolyn L. Hynes ,&nbsp;Simone P. Keller ,&nbsp;Ariane Weinman ,&nbsp;Jean-Yves Blay ,&nbsp;Pedro Franco ,&nbsp;Rachel H. Giles ,&nbsp;Denis Lacombe ,&nbsp;Philipp Schlatter ,&nbsp;David M. Thomas ,&nbsp;Sahar Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani ,&nbsp;Max Williamson ,&nbsp;Ruth Plummer","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103013","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103013","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rare cancers account for a quarter of cancer diagnoses in Europe yet clinical research, diagnosis, treatment access, and survival outcomes lag significantly behind common cancers. Despite the potential of precision oncology, the consistent implementation of comprehensive genomic profiling in routine clinical practice and robust evidence-generation remains a challenge in this population, compounded by regulatory hurdles and a lack of investment in drug development. A concerted effort across all stakeholders is required to optimise diagnostics, including access to molecular profiling, to expedite clinical trials and treatment access, and to gather high-quality data, including patient-reported outcomes, in rare cancers. Some initiatives are already showing promise including the establishment of national expert reference centres and European Reference Networks such as EURACAN. However, further collaboration is required to speed up the diagnostic trajectory so that rare cancer patients present with less late-stage disease, and to facilitate clinical trials leading to wider access to precision oncology drugs shown to be safe and effective. In the context of so many hurdles (diagnosis, treatment, research, development and regulatory), there is an even greater role for patient and clinical trial organisations and funders to help fill the aforementioned gaps. Innovative solutions are urgently required to address the high unmet medical need for patients with rare cancers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 103013"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144932626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Novel therapies targeting delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) in pulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas","authors":"María Alameda-Guijarro ,&nbsp;Antonio Rueda-Lara ,&nbsp;Gema Martin-Montalvo ,&nbsp;Oliver Higuera ,&nbsp;Laura Gutiérrez-Sainz ,&nbsp;Diego Jiménez-Bou ,&nbsp;Julia Villamayor ,&nbsp;Javier de Castro ,&nbsp;Ana Custodio ,&nbsp;Pablo Pérez-Wert","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103022","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 103022"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145095756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}