É

Élisabeth Luporsi

Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant

Publishes on BRCA gene mutations in cancer, Breast Cancer Treatment Studies, Erythropoietin and Anemia Treatment. 97 papers and 4.2k citations.

97Publications
4.2kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Induction Chemotherapy and Dose Intensification of the Radiation Boost in Locally Advanced Anal Canal Carcinoma: Final Analysis of the Randomized UNICANCER ACCORD 03 Trial
D. Peiffert, L. Tournier-Rangeard, Jean‐Pierre Gérard et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2012
Cited by 376Open Access

Purpose Concomitant radiochemotherapy (RCT) is the standard for locally advanced anal canal carcinoma (LAACC). Questions regarding the role of induction chemotherapy (ICT) and a higher radiation dose in LAACC are pending. Our trial was designed to determine whether dose escalation of the radiation boost or two cycles of ICT before concomitant RCT lead to an improvement in colostomy-free survival (CFS). Patients and Methods Patients with tumors ≥ 40 mm, or < 40 mm and N1-3M0 were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: (A) two ICT cycles (fluorouracil 800 mg/m 2 /d intravenous [IV] infusion, days 1 through 4 and 29 to 32; and cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 IV, on days 1 and 29), RCT (45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks, fluorouracil and cisplatin during weeks 1 and 5), and standard-dose boost (SD; 15 Gy); (B) two ICT cycles, RCT, and high-dose boost (HD; 20-25 Gy); (C): RCT and SD boost (reference arm); and (D) RCT and HD boost. Results Two hundred eighty-three of 307 patients achieved full treatment. With a median follow-up period of 50 months, the 5-year CFS rates were 69.6%, 82.4%, 77.1%, and 72.7% in arms A, B, C, and D, respectively. Considering the 2 × 2 factorial analysis, the 5-year CFS was 76.5% versus 75.0% (P = .37) in groups A and B versus C and D, respectively (ICT effect), and 73.7% versus 77.8% in groups A and C versus B and D, respectively (RT-dose effect; P = .067). Conclusion Using CFS as our main end point, we did not find an advantage for either ICT or HD radiation boost in LAACC. Nevertheless, the results of the most treatment-intense arm B should prompt the design of further intensification studies.

Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review
Élisabeth Luporsi, Fabrice André, Frédérique Spyratos et al.|Breast Cancer Research and Treatment|2011
Cited by 319Open Access

Clinicians can use biomarkers to guide therapeutic decisions in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. One such biomarker is cellular proliferation as evaluated by Ki-67. This biomarker has been extensively studied and is easily assayed by histopathologists but it is not currently accepted as a standard. This review focuses on its prognostic and predictive value, and on methodological considerations for its measurement and the cut-points used for treatment decision. Data describing study design, patients' characteristics, methods used and results were extracted from papers published between January 1990 and July 2010. In addition, the studies were assessed using the REMARK tool. Ki-67 is an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (HR 1.05-1.72) in multivariate analyses studies using samples from randomized clinical trials with secondary central analysis of the biomarker. The level of evidence (LOE) was judged to be I-B with the recently revised definition of Simon. However, standardization of the techniques and scoring methods are needed for the integration of this biomarker in everyday practice. Ki-67 was not found to be predictive for long-term follow-up after chemotherapy. Nevertheless, high KI-67 was found to be associated with immediate pathological complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, with an LOE of II-B. The REMARK score improved over time (with a range of 6-13/20 vs. 10-18/20, before and after 2005, respectively). KI-67 could be considered as a prognostic biomarker for therapeutic decision. It is assessed with a simple assay that could be standardized. However, international guidelines are needed for routine clinical use.