Search

Introduction: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusions identify a limited subset of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, whose therapeutic approach have been radically changed in recent years. However, diagnostic procedures and clinical-radiological responses to specific targeted therapies remain heterogeneous and intrinsically resistant or poor responder patients exist. Methods: A total of 290 patients with advanced NSCLC defined as ALK+ by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) test and treated with single or sequential multiple ALK inhibitors (ALKi) from 2011 to 2017 have been retrospectively retrieved from a multicentre Italian cancer network database. In 55 patients with enough leftover tumour tissue, specimens were analysed with both targeted and customised next generation sequencing panels. Identified fusion variants have been correlated with clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 55 patients, 24 received crizotinib as first-line therapy, 1 received ceritinib, while 30 received chemotherapy. Most of the patients (64%) received ALKi in sequence. An ALK fusion variant was identified in 73% of the cases, being V3 variant (E6A20) the most frequent, followed by V1 (E13A20) and more rare ones (e.g. E6A19). In three specimens, four new EML4-ALK fusion breakpoints have been reported. Neither fusion variants nor brain metastases were significantly associated with overall survival (OS), while it was predictably longer in patients receiving a sequence of ALKi. The presence of V1 variant was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) improvement when crizotinib was used (p = 0.0073), while it did not affect cumulative PFS to multiple ALKi. Conclusion: Outcomes to sequential ALKi administration were not influenced by fusion variants. Nevertheless, in V1+ patients a prolonged clinical benefit was observed. Fusion variant identification by NGS technology may add relevant information about rare chromosomal events that could be pot

Constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with an increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers. Current evidence indicates that BRCA1/2 PVs are also associated with pancreatic cancer, and that BRCA2 PVs are associated with prostate cancer risk. The identification of carriers of constitutional PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes allows the implementation of individual and family prevention pathways, through validated screening programs and risk-reducing strategies. According to the relevant and increasing therapeutic predictive implications, the inclusion of BRCA testing in the routine management of patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancers represent a key requirement to optimize medical or surgical therapeutic and prevention decision-making, and access to specific anticancer therapies. Therefore, accurate patient selection, the use of standardized and harmonized procedures, and adherence to homogeneous testing criteria, are essential elements to implement BRCA testing in clinical practice. This consensus position paper has been developed and approved by a multidisciplinary Expert Panel of 64 professionals on behalf of the AIOM–AIRO–AISP–ANISC–AURO–Fondazione AIOM–SIAPEC/IAP–SIBioC–SICO–SIF–SIGE–SIGU–SIU–SIURO–UROP Italian Scientific Societies, and a patient association (aBRCAdaBRA Onlus). The working group included medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, medical and molecular geneticists, clinical molecular biologists, surgical and molecular pathologists, organ specialists such as gynecologists, gastroenterologists and urologists, and pharmacologists. The manuscript is based on the expert consensus and reports the best available evidence, according to the current eligibility criteria for BRCA testing and counseling, it also harmonizes with current Italian National Guidelines and Clinical Recommendations.

IMPORTANCE: New dosing options for immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including fixed dosing with extended intervals. Although the dose intensity appears the same, there is expected to be some waste with extended-interval dosing, as some drug remains in the bloodstream once a decision to stop treatment is made. The economic impact of extended-interval fixed dosing is unknown compared with standard-interval fixed dosing. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the potential health care costs of using extended-interval fixed dosing instead of standard-interval fixed dosing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation used a pharmacoeconomic model to simulate 2 cohorts of patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer receiving pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at different dosing intervals using 2020 pricing data. Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. EXPOSURES: The simulated patients received FDA-approved regimens of either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The progression-free survival curve from the KEYNOTE-045 trial was used to estimate treatment duration. Drug, imaging, and administration costs were included in analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how different imaging frequencies would affect the model results. The potential overall costs of using the 2 different dosing strategies were assessed. The base case was set in the US, while sensitivity analyses were set in several other countries. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, dosing every 6 weeks instead of every 3 weeks resulted in an estimated 8.9% increase in pembrolizumab costs for the health care payer. Accounting for a decrease in infusion costs would result in an estimated net additional cost of $7483 per patient in the US (7.9% cost increase). In the US, this would amount to an increase of approximately $28 million annually for health care payers. Similar percenta

IMPORTANCE: New dosing options for immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including fixed dosing with extended intervals. Although the dose intensity appears the same, there is expected to be some waste with extended-interval dosing, as some drug remains in the bloodstream once a decision to stop treatment is made. The economic impact of extended-interval fixed dosing is unknown compared with standard-interval fixed dosing. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the potential health care costs of using extended-interval fixed dosing instead of standard-interval fixed dosing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation used a pharmacoeconomic model to simulate 2 cohorts of patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer receiving pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at different dosing intervals using 2020 pricing data. Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. EXPOSURES: The simulated patients received FDA-approved regimens of either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The progression-free survival curve from the KEYNOTE-045 trial was used to estimate treatment duration. Drug, imaging, and administration costs were included in analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how different imaging frequencies would affect the model results. The potential overall costs of using the 2 different dosing strategies were assessed. The base case was set in the US, while sensitivity analyses were set in several other countries. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, dosing every 6 weeks instead of every 3 weeks resulted in an estimated 8.9% increase in pembrolizumab costs for the health care payer. Accounting for a decrease in infusion costs would result in an estimated net additional cost of $7483 per patient in the US (7.9% cost increase). In the US, this would amount to an increase of approximately $28 million annually for health care payers. Similar percenta

Background: When treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, therapeutic decisions are left to the sensibility of treating clinicians who, faced with a decision that post hoc can be proven wrong, may feel a sense of regret that they want to avoid. A regret-based decision model was applied to evaluate attitudes to-ward neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Methods: Three clinical scenarios describing high-, intermediate-, and low-risk disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery were presented to 60 respondents (20 oncologists, 20 gastroenterologists, and 20 surgeons). Respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied to analyze respondents' attitudes toward neo-adjuvant therapy.Results: The lowest regret of omission was elicited in the low-risk scenario, and the highest regret in the high-risk scenario (P < .001). The regret of the commission was diametrically opposite to the regret of omission (P < .001). The disease-specific threshold mortality at which upfront surgery is favored over the neoadjuvant therapy progressively decreased from the low-risk to the high-risk scenarios (P <=.001). The nonsurgeons working in or with lower surgical volume centers (P = .010) and surgeons (P = .018) accepted higher disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery, which resulted in the lower likelihood of adopting neoadjuvant therapy.Conclusion: Regret drives decision making in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Being a surgeon or a specialist working in surgical centers with lower patient volumes reduces the likelihood of recommending neoadjuvant therapy.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

IMPORTANCE: New dosing options for immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including fixed dosing with extended intervals. Although the dose intensity appears the same, there is expected to be some waste with extended-interval dosing, as some drug remains in the bloodstream once a decision to stop treatment is made. The economic impact of extended-interval fixed dosing is unknown compared with standard-interval fixed dosing. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the potential health care costs of using extended-interval fixed dosing instead of standard-interval fixed dosing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation used a pharmacoeconomic model to simulate 2 cohorts of patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer receiving pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at different dosing intervals using 2020 pricing data. Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. EXPOSURES: The simulated patients received FDA-approved regimens of either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The progression-free survival curve from the KEYNOTE-045 trial was used to estimate treatment duration. Drug, imaging, and administration costs were included in analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how different imaging frequencies would affect the model results. The potential overall costs of using the 2 different dosing strategies were assessed. The base case was set in the US, while sensitivity analyses were set in several other countries. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, dosing every 6 weeks instead of every 3 weeks resulted in an estimated 8.9% increase in pembrolizumab costs for the health care payer. Accounting for a decrease in infusion costs would result in an estimated net additional cost of $7483 per patient in the US (7.9% cost increase). In the US, this would amount to an increase of approximately $28 million annually for health care payers. Similar percenta

Background: The open-label, single-arm, multicenter ORZORA trial (NCT02476968) evaluated the efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) who had tumor BRCA mutations (BRCAm) of germline (g) or somatic (s) origin or non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations (HRRm) and were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy after ≥2 lines of treatment. Methods: Patients received maintenance olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily) until disease progression. Prospective central testing at screening determined tumor BRCAm status and subsequent testing determined gBRCAm or sBRCAm status. Patients with predefined non-BRCA HRRm were assigned to an exploratory cohort. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) in BRCAm and sBRCAm cohorts. Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability. Results: 177 patients received olaparib. At the primary data cut-off (17 April 2020), the median follow-up for PFS in the BRCAm cohort was 22.3 months. The median PFS (95% CI) in BRCAm, sBRCAm, gBRCAm and non-BRCA HRRm cohorts was 18.0 (14.3-22.1), 16.6 (12.4-22.2), 19.3 (14.3-27.6) and 16.4 (10.9-19.3) months, respectively. Most patients with BRCAm reported improvements (21.8%) or no change (68.7%) in HRQoL and the safety profile was as expected. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib had similar clinical activity in PSR OC patients with sBRCAm and those with any BRCAm. Activity was also observed in patients with a non-BRCA HRRm. ORZORA further supports use of maintenance olaparib in all patients with BRCA-mutated, including sBRCA-mutated, PSR OC.

Background: We previously demonstrated the cumulative poor prognostic role of concomitant medications on the clinical outcome of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, creating and validating a drug-based prognostic score to be calculated before immunotherapy initiation in patients with advanced solid tumours. This ‘drug score’ was calculated assigning score 1 for each between proton-pump inhibitor and antibiotic administration until a month before cancer therapy initiation and score 2 in case of corticosteroid intake. The good risk group included patients with score 0, intermediate risk with score 1–2 and poor risk with score 3–4. Methods: Aiming at validating the prognostic and putative predictive ability depending on the anticancer therapy, we performed the present comparative analysis in two cohorts of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), respectively, receiving first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy through a random case-control matching and through a pooled multivariable analysis including the interaction between the computed score and the therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy). Results: Nine hundred fifty and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. After the case-control random matching, 589 patients from the pembrolizumab cohort and 589 from the chemotherapy cohort were paired, with no statistically significant differences between the characteristics of the matched subjects. Among the pembrolizumab-treated group, good, intermediate and poor risk evaluable patients achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 50.0%, 37.7% and 23.4%, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated group, patients achieved an ORR of 37.0%, 40.0% and 32.4%, respectively (p = 0.4346). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of good, intermediate and poor risk groups was 13.9 months, 6.3 months and 2.8 months, respectively, within the pembrolizumab coh

Background Some concomitant medications including antibiotics (ATB) have been reproducibly associated with worse survival following immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in unselected patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (according to programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and treatment line). Whether such relationship is causative or associative is matter of debate. Methods We present the outcomes analysis according to concomitant baseline medications (prior to ICI initiation) with putative immune-modulatory effects in a large cohort of patients with metastatic NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression >= 50%, receiving first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. We also evaluated a control cohort of patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with first-line chemotherapy. The interaction between key medications and therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy) was validated in pooled multivariable analyses. Results 950 and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. Corticosteroid and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy but not ATB therapy was associated with poorer performance status at baseline in both the cohorts. No association with clinical outcomes was found according to baseline statin, aspirin, beta-blocker and metformin within the pembrolizumab cohort. On the multivariable analysis, ATB emerged as a strong predictor of worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.42 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.79); p=0.0024), and progression free survival (PFS) (HR=1.29 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.59); p=0.0192) in the pembrolizumab but not in the chemotherapy cohort. Corticosteroids were associated with shorter PFS (HR=1.69 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.03); p<0.0001), and OS (HR=1.93 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.35); p<0.0001) following pembrolizumab, and shorter PFS (HR=1.30 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.56), p=0.0046) and OS (HR=1.58 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.94), p<0.0001), following chemotherapy. PPIs were associated with worse OS (HR=1.49 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.77); p<0.0001) with pem

Background: Treatment sequencing with first-line immunotherapy, followed by second-line chemotherapy, is still a viable option for NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%. Methods: We evaluated post-progression treatment pathways in a large real-world cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. Results: Overall, 974 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 22.7 months (95%CI: 21.6–38.2), the median overall survival (OS) of the entire population was 15.8 months (95%CI: 13.5–17.5; 548 events). At the data cutoff, among the 678 patients who experienced disease progression, 379 (55.9%) had not received any further treatment, and 359 patients (52.9%) had died. Patients who did not receive post-progression therapies were older (p = 0.0011), with a worse ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and were on corticosteroids prior to pembrolizumab (p = 0.0024). At disease progression, 198 patients (29.2%) received a switched approach and 101 (14.9%) received pembrolizumab ByPD either alone (64 [9.4%]) or in combination with local ablative treatments (37 [5.5%]) (LATs). After a random-case control matching according to ECOG-PS, CNS metastases, bone metastases, and (previous) best response to pembrolizumab, patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD plus LATs were confirmed to have a significantly longer post-progression OS compared to patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD alone 13.9 months versus 7.8 months (p = 0.0179) 241 patients (35.5%) among the 678 who had experienced PD, received a second-line systemic treatment (regardless of previous treatment beyond PD). As compared to first-line treatment commencement, patients’ features at the moment of second-line initiation showed a significantly higher proportion of patients aged under 70 years (p = 0.0244), with a poorer ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and having CNS (p = 0.0001), bone (p = 0.0266) and liver metastases (p = 0.0148). Conclusions: In the real-world scenario NSC

Purpose: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement confers sensitivity to ALK inhibitors (ALKis) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although several drugs provided an impressive outcome benefit, the most effective sequential strategy is still unknown. We describe outcomes of real-life patients according to the treatment strategy received. Patients: We retrospectively collected 290 ALK rearranged advanced NSCLC diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 in 23 Italian institutions. Results: After a median follow-up of 26 months, PFS for crizotinib and a new generation ALKis were 9.4 [CI 95% 7.9–11.2] and 11.1 months [CI 95% 9.2–13.8], respectively, while TTF were 10.2 [CI 95% 8.5–12.6] and 11.9 months [CI 95% 9.7–17.4], respectively, being consistent across the different settings. The composed outcomes (the sum of PFS or TTF) in patients treated with crizotinib followed by a new generation ALKis were 27.8 months [CI 95% 24.3–33.7] in PFS and 30.4 months [CI 95% 24.7–34.9] in TTF. The median OS from the diagnosis of advanced disease was 39 months [CI 95% 31.8–54.5]. Patients receiving crizotinib followed by a new generation ALKis showed a higher median OS [57 months (CI 95% 42.0–73.8)] compared to those that did not receive crizotinib [38 months (CI 95% 18.6–NR)] and those who performed only crizotinib as target agent [15 months (CI 95% 11.3–34.0)] (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The sequential administration of crizotinib and a new generation ALKis provided a remarkable clinical benefit in this real-life population, being an interesting option to consider in selected patients.

Objectives: In the most of cases, for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who progressed to previous immune checkpoint inhibitors (CKI) administered as first- or as second-line therapy, chemotherapy (CT) remains the only viable options in the absence of “druggable” mutations. We aimed to explore the efficacy of salvage chemotherapy after immunotherapy (SCAI) in advanced NSCLC patients. Materials and Methods: We designed a retrospective, multicenter study, involving 20 Italian centers, with the primary objective of describing the clinical outcome of advanced NSCLC patients treated with SCAI at the participating institutions from November 2013 to July 2019. The primary endpoint of the study was represented by overall survival (OS), defined as the time from CT initiation to death. Secondary outcome endpoints of the SCAI (progression free survival, PFS, objective response rate, ORR and toxicity) and explorative biomarkers (lactate dehydrogenase, LDH, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, NLR during immunotherapy) were also analyzed. Results: In our study population of 342 NSCLC patients, SCAI obtained a median OS of 6.8 months (95 % confidence interval, CI 5.5–8.1), median PFS of 4.1 months (95 % CI 3.4−4.8) and ORR of 22.8 %. A “Post-CKI score” was constructed by combining significant predictors of OS at the multivariate analyses (sex, ECOG PS, disease control with prior immunotherapy), Harrell'C was 0.65, (95 % CI:0.59−0.71). Conclusions: Despite the late-line settings, our findings support the hypothesis that previous immunotherapy might increase the sensitivity of the tumor to the subsequent chemotherapy. The “Post-CKI score” was clinically effective in successfully discriminating three distinct prognostic subgroups of patients after the failure of CKI, representing a possibly useful tool for the tailored decision-making process of advanced treatment-line settings in NSCLC.

The safety and activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors have been characterized in interventional and observational studies. However, only small studies have specifically investigated these agents in patients who are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials, frequently referred to as “special populations” or “underrepresented populations.” These include older adults, those with dysregulated immune activation, patients with a compromised immune function, and those carrying major viral infections, lymphoproliferative diseases, and major organ dysfunctions. Therefore, there remains substantial uncertainty regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in these specific settings. The Network of Italian Supportive Care in Oncology has carried out a multidisciplinary project, with the contribution of oncologists and other specialists, to retrieve the existing evidence on the use of immunotherapy in patients with solid and hematological cancers with the final aim to provide an expert guidance. The results of this effort are presented in this article, which is focused on patients with major viral infections or those with immune dysregulation/autoimmune diseases, and could be useful to guide decisions in clinical practice and to design prospective clinical trials focusing on the use of immunotherapy in these populations. Implications for Practice: Substantial uncertainty remains regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in “underrepresented” patients, such as older adults, those with dysregulated immune activation, and patients with a compromised immune function, major viral infections, lymphoproliferative diseases or major organ dysfunctions. The Network of Italian Supportive Care in Oncology has carried out a multidisciplinary project to retrieve the existing evidence on the use of immunotherapy in underrepresented patients with cancer in order provide an expert guidance. The results of this effort, with a focus on patients with major viral infections or

Background: Low grade serous carcinoma of the ovary and peritoneum (LGSC) is characterized by low response rates to chemotherapy and by MAPK pathway alterations. Phase II/III clinical trials tested different MEK inhibitors (MEKis) in this complex malignancy, with heterogenous results. Purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to define activity and efficacy of these agents and explore differences in clinical outcomes related to RAS/RAF mutational status. Methods: In March 2022, we searched Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the major conference proceedings (ASCO, ESMO) for randomized and non-randomized clinical trials evaluating MEKi as single agent in recurrent LGSC. The screening was performed independently by two reviewers. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) data were extracted, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: A total of 4 clinical trials involving 648 patients were included. In the intention-to-treat population, use of a MEK inhibitor was not associated with a significant improvement in PFS, with a pooled Hazard Ratio equal to 0.75 (95 % CI: 0.30 – 1.86, P = 0.54). Heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 92 %; P = 0.0004). In the overall study population, the pooled odds ratio of ORR for MEKis compared to control treatment was 2.61 (95 % CI: 0.65 – 10.54, P = 0.18). Specifically, ORR was 20.12 % in patients treated with MEKis compared to 9.09 % in women receiving standard treatment. Heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 85 %; P = 0.009). Conclusions: Although no statistically significant improvement in PFS was demonstrated, the available data show clear signals of activity, at least for some MEKis.

Non-small-cell lung cancer harboring uncommon epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (any mutation other than deletion 19 or substitution of leucine by arginine at codon 858) presents a variable sensitivity to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. With the final aim to enrich knowledge about uncommon EGFR mutations, we performed a post hoc analysis of the beyond progression after tyrosine kinase inhibitor in EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients (BE-POSITIVE) trial. Thirty-five patients were included of the original 312 EGFR-mutated cases. The results of our analysis support the existence of a strong heterogeneity within patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations, which implies the necessity to stratify the subgroups of rare mutations in individual entities with different clinical perspectives. Background: Beyond progression after tyrosine kinase inhibitor in EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients (BE-POSITIVE) was the first Italian multicenter observational study that reported the outcomes of first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in a “real-life” Caucasian EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) population. The sharing of multi-institutional experiences represents a crucial strategy to enrich knowledge about uncommon EGFR mutations. Therefore, we performed a post hoc analysis of the BE-POSITIVE study. Patients and Methods: Data of advanced NSCLC patients with uncommon EGFR mutations who received first-line first-generation EGFR-TKIs in 24 Italian Hospitals were collected. In this analysis we aimed to evaluate overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) of EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations. Results: Thirty-five patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations (any mutation other than deletion 19 or substitution of leucine by arginine at codon 858) were included of the original 312 EGFR-mutated cases. Most of them

Background: Pembrolizumab is the first-line standard of care for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 2 patients may receive pembrolizumab, despite the absence of sustaining evidence. Patients and methods: GOIRC-2018-01 is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study. PS 2 NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 TPS ≥50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab from June 2017 to December 2018 at 21 Italian institutions were included. Clinical-pathological characteristics were correlated with disease response and survival outcomes; adverse events were recorded. The primary objective was 6-months progression-free rate (6-months PFR). Results: One hundred fifty-three patients (median age 70 years) were enrolled. At a median follow-up of 18.2 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 1.6–2.5) and 3.0 months (95% CI 2.4–3.5), respectively. 6-months PFR was 27% (95% CI 21–35%). Patients with a PS 2 determined by comorbidities (n = 41) had significantly better outcomes compared with disease burden-induced PS 2 (n = 112). Indeed, 6-months PFR was 49% versus 19%, median PFS 5.6 versus 1.8 months and OS 11.8 versus 2.8 months, respectively. Additional potential prognostic factors (radiotherapy, antibiotics, steroids received before pembrolizumab) correlated with clinical outcomes. The determinant of PS 2 resulted the only factor independently impacting on both PFS and OS. No toxicity issues emerged. Conclusions: Outcomes of PS 2 NSCLC patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab were globally dismal but strongly dependent on the reason conditioning the poor PS itself.

Objectives Molecular profiling of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is recommended according to European and Italian guidelines. However, molecular routine assessment remains still heterogeneous. This observational study aimed to take a picture of the real clinical practice in molecular testing and therapeutic choices in advanced Italian NSCLCs. Materials and methods This study prospectively enrolled newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent NSCLCs referred to 38 Italian centres, from November 2014 to November 2015. Information regarding molecular profiling and treatment choices were collected. Description of patients’ outcome included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival in first (PFS1) and second-line (PFS2). Results and conclusion Among 1787 patients enrolled, 1388 (78%) performed at least one molecular analysis during the history of disease: 76% were tested for EGFR, 53% for ALK, 27% for KRAS, 16% for ROS1, 14% for BRAF, 5% for HER2, 4% for MET and 1% for FGFR. The remaining 399 patients (22.3%) did not receive any molecular test. Among patients receiving at least one molecular analysis, 583 (42%) presented a molecular alteration. Considering EGFR mutated and/or ALK rearranged patients (402), for which target agents were routinely reimbursed at time of study in Italy, the 86% received a personalized treatment as first and/or second line: the 90% (286) of EGFR mutants received an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, mostly gefitinib (41.1%) or afatinib (36.4%) while 74% (62) of ALK translocated patients received an ALK inhibitor, mostly crizotinib (64%). Median OS was 9.34 months (95% CI 8.62–10.0), median PFS1 was 4.61 months (95%CI 4.31–4.84) and median PFS2 was 2.76 months (95%CI 2.57–3.19). In the Italian clinical practice, routine molecular assessment was largely applied in NSCLC patients, according to national guidelines, but a low level of ALK test was reached. Most of EGFR mutants an ALK rearranged patients received a personalized treatment a

One question is how long patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer wish to receive therapy. The perceptions of > 100 patients and physicians were analyzed to compare different prognostic conditions. The patients' attitudes were generally positive and not directly linked to the expected benefits, suggesting that other factors in conjunction with the clinical assessment, such as the doctor–patient relationship, should be considered to understand patients' motivations. Introduction Pemetrexed maintenance therapy (MT) after induction with platinum-based chemotherapy has recently become a common treatment strategy for advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the benefits of MT should be weighed with consideration of the patients' perceptions and preferences. The aim of the present study was to evaluate patients' attitudes toward MT and to describe physicians' awareness of their patients' inclinations. Materials and Methods We administered a 12-question anonymous survey and the Distress Thermometer Questionnaire to patients with advanced or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. The survey was also distributed to the referring physicians. Results From December 2014 to July 2015, 92 patients and 37 physicians were enrolled. All 92 patients completed the questionnaire at T0 (before starting chemotherapy) and 56.5% also did so at T1 (after completion of induction). The physicians completed the survey only at T0. Most patients had a positive attitude toward MT at both T0 (78.9%) and T1 (86.5%), and 100% of the physicians thought their patients would be in favor of MT. The physicians believed that their patients' attitudes toward MT would decrease proportionally with the reduction in the magnitude of the overall survival increase and expected benefits. The decrease expected by the physicians was much greater than that reported by the patients. This was especially true for an overall survival increase as small as 1 month (51.9% of patients accepting MT

This report summarizes the clinical features and the indications for treating HCV infection in immunocompromised and transplanted patients in the Direct Acting Antiviral drugs era.

Background Chemo-radiotherapy is standard of care in the treatment of unresectable stage III NSCLC. We aimed at assessing whether the addition of concurrent taxane-chemotherapy to thoracic irradiation following chemotherapy was able to improve treatment outcome. Material and methods In PITCAP trial, patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC were randomized to receive 2 cycles of platinum-paclitaxel followed by 60–61.2 Gy thoracic irradiation (control arm) or by same radiotherapy with concomitant weekly paclitaxel (experimental arm). A literature-based meta-analysis including all studies with same design was also performed. Results At the time of the second interim analysis, when 151 patients were randomized, accrual was terminated. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, median survival was 13.2 vs 15.1 months, with a 3-year survival rate of 19.5 vs 21.2% in the control and experimental arm, respectively (HR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.69–1.36; p = 0.845). Treatment toxicity was manageable in both arms. The meta-analysis of 5 trials (n = 866) confirmed the lack of a meaningful effect on 1-year overall survival of a taxane added concurrently to radiotherapy. Conclusions These results do not support a meaningful survival benefit with the addition of single agent taxane given concurrently to radiotherapy after platinum-based induction in locally advanced NSCLC.

Objectives: Non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) patients harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations develop drug resistance after 9-12 months of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy pointing out the issue of the second-line treatment choice. Materials and methods: From June 2009 until May 2013 patients affected by advanced NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutations receiving first-line TKI were collected mainly retrospectively in 24 Italian Centers. Primary objective was to describe the percentage of EGFR mutated patients receiving second-line therapy after progression to first-line EGFR-TKIs assessing the type, the activity in terms of objective response rate (ORR), efficacy in terms of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and safety of second-line treatment. Secondary objective was to describe the efficacy of first-line EGFR-TKIs. Results: 312 patients were included. Most of them were females (203, 65.1%), never smokers (200, 64.1%), with adenocarcinoma histology (290, 92.9%). The most common mutations were EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R, detected in 186 and 97 cases (59.6% and 31.1%), respectively. At data cut-off, 274 patients (95.1%) received any second-line treatment (including best supportive care or local treatments only). A total of 163 patients received second-line systemic therapy with an ORR of 20.9% (95% CI:14.62-27.10), a median PFS and OS of 4.7 (95% CI:3.81-5.26) and 24.5 (95% CI:21.65-27.37) months, respectively. Grade 3-4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were reported in 9% and 6.3% of 144 patients treated with chemotherapy while non-hematological toxicity was reported in 4 cases of the 17 patients receiving second-line target agents. Conclusions: BE-Positive is the first multicenter observational study reporting outcomes of therapies in a "real-life Caucasian EGFR-mutated population", highlighting the need of further researches about new treatment strategies in this setting.

AIM: Considering the unmet need for the counseling of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CKI) about influenza vaccination, an explorative study was planned to assess flu vaccine efficacy in this population. METHODS: INVIDIa was a retrospective, multicenter study, enrolling consecutive advanced cancer outpatients receiving CKI during the influenza season 2016-2017. RESULTS: Of 300 patients, 79 received flu vaccine. The incidence of influenza syndrome was 24.1% among vaccinated, versus 11.8% of controls; odds ratio: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.23-4.59; p = 0.009. The clinical ineffectiveness of vaccine was more pronounced among elderly: 37.8% among vaccinated patients, versus 6.1% of unvaccinated, odds ratio: 9.28; 95% CI: 2.77-31.14; p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: Although influenza vaccine may be clinically ineffective in advanced cancer patients receiving CKI, it seems not to negatively impact the efficacy of anticancer therapy.

Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines represent a key tool to improve quality and reduce variability of cancer care. In 2004, Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) launched the RIGHT (research for the identification of the most effective and highly accepted clinical guidelines for cancer treatment) program. The third step, RIGHT-3, evaluated the concordance between AIOM lung cancer guidelines and Italian clinical practice. Materials and methods: RIGHT-3 was a retrospective observational study, conducted in 53 Italian centers treating lung cancer. Sampling from AIOM database of 230 centers was stratified by presence of thoracic surgery and geographic distribution. To describe the adherence to AIOM guidelines (2009 edition), 11 indicators regarding diagnostic and treatment procedures were identified. Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) diagnosis who had first visit in 2010 were divided into 3 groups, based on TNM stage: I-II-IIIA (5 indicators), IIIB (3 indicators) and IV (3 indicators). Results: 708 patients were enrolled; 680 were eligible: 225 patients in stage I-II-IIIA; 156 patients in stage IIIB; 299 patients in stage IV. Cyto-histological diagnosis was available in 96%, 97%, 96% of stage I-II-IIIA, IIIB, IV respectively. Positron-emission tomography was performed in 64% of stage I-II-IIIA and 46% of stage IIIB. 88% of stage I-II patients eligible for surgery underwent lobectomy; after surgery, 61% of stage II and 57% of stage IIIA patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Among stage IIIB patients who received combined chemo- radiotherapy, sequential approach was more common than concomitant treatment (86% vs. 14%). Among stage IV patients, 87% received platinum-based first-line treatment, and 70% received second-line. Conclusion: The RIGHT-3 study showed that, in 2010, adherence to Italian NSCLC guidelines was high for many indicators (including those related to treatment of stage IV patients), but lower for some diagnostic procedures.

Chemotherapy side effects (CSE) have a strong impact on patients’ quality of life (QOL). To assess patient perceptions of CSE, their impact on QOL and doctor–patient communication regarding these aspects, a survey was conducted among Italian cancer patients. Patients at least 18 years of age, who received chemotherapy, were administered a dedicated questionnaire to assess their point of view on five domains: expectations about CSE and impact on QOL; doctor–patient communication about CSE; treatments to reduce the impact of CSE; sexual life; family relationships/activities and employment. A total of 761 patients participated. CSE had a considerable impact on patient QOL. Nausea/vomiting was the most feared adverse effect before initiating chemotherapy and the one most commonly experienced during treatment. Patients generally reported good doctor–patient communication regarding information about CSE. In almost all cases, the oncologists prescribed an antiemetic treatment, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was high. Cancer and CSE severely affected sexual life, daily activities and employment. CSE had a strong negative impact on QOL. Good doctor–patient communication is essential. Improving antiemetic strategies may improve QOL. Doctors’ ability to inform patients about delicate issues, such as the impact of CSE on sexual life, needs to be improved.

Background: A recent pooled analysis of randomized trials indicated significant improvement in overall survival from cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), depending on disease stage (only in stages II and III) and PS (≤1). Post-operative radiotherapy (RT) is optional for pN2 tumours. Patients and methods: To evaluate opinions and daily clinical practice of Italian Oncologists about adjuvant treatment of NSCLC, a 46-item questionnaire was delivered via e-mail. Results: Seventy-eight physicians from 68 Centers (out of 98 contacted) returned their questionnaire. Seventy-four, 86, 94, and 78% of them give the indication for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IIIB disease, respectively and 14% in stage IB disease. Stage, PS, and age are taken into consideration evaluating adjuvant approach by 97, 95 and 73%, respectively. Cisplatin-vinorelbine (64%) and cisplatin-gemcitabine (33%), for 4 cycles (81%), are the preferred regimens, while 32% use different regimens. Ninety-two percent indicate RT in pN2 disease and/or positive resection margins. Real Number of patients Needed to Treat (NNT) is probably not completely known/understood and/or used by physicians. Conclusions: A substantial adherence between clinical daily practice in Italy and scientific progresses is described in this paper, even with some discordances regarding the most appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.

Randomized trials comparing gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC support gefitinib as a new, highly effective treatment option in this setting. However, its use in clinical practice has several relevant implications and open issues. In order to choose the best treatment, a molecular characterization is now mandatory, as part of baseline diagnostic procedures. Every effort should be made in order to obtain sufficient tissue. If a clinical enrichment has to be performed for selecting patients to test for EGFR mutation, a reasonable proposal is to test all non-squamous tumors, and patients with squamous tumors only if never smokers. In patients with EGFR mutated tumor, one major issue is the decision about immediate use of gefitinib as first-line, or after failure of standard chemotherapy. First-line gefitinib, compared to chemotherapy, is associated with longer progression-free survival, higher response rate, better toxicity profile and quality of life, and its administration as first-line warrants that all patients have the chance of receiving an EGFR inhibitor. Evidence about the efficacy of erlotinib in the same setting will be soon available, however, at the moment, there are no direct comparisons between gefitinib and erlotinib in EGFR mutated patients. Treatment with gefitinib is usually well tolerated. Typical side effects in most cases are of mild to moderate intensity, and usually manageable with temporary interruption of treatment. When indicated gefitinib appears feasible also in special populations, like elderly or unfit patients, characterized by a significantly poorer risk/benefit ratio with standard chemotherapy. Personalized medicine for patients with lung cancer is now a reality, and patients with EGFR mutation should be treated with first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of angiogenesis is a valuable treatment strategy for ovarian cancer. Pazopanib is an anti-angiogenic drug active in ovarian cancer. We assessed the effect of adding pazopanib to paclitaxel for patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 hospitals in Italy. We included patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer previously treated with a maximum of two lines of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and no residual peripheral neurotoxicity. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) with or without pazopanib 800 mg daily, and stratified by centre, number of previous lines of chemotherapy, and platinum-free interval status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01644825. This report is the final analysis; the trial is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 15, 2010, and Feb 8, 2013, we enrolled 74 patients: 37 were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel and pazopanib and 37 were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel only. One patient, in the paclitaxel only group, withdrew from the study and was excluded from analyses. Median follow-up was 16·1 months (IQR 12·5-20·8). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the pazopanib plus paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel only group (median 6·35 months [95% CI 5·36-11·02] vs 3·49 months [2·01-5·66]; hazard ratio 0·42 [95% CI 0·25-0·69]; p=0·0002). We recorded no unexpected toxic effects or deaths from toxic effects. Adverse events were more common in the pazopanib and paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel only group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [30%] in the pazopanib group vs one [3%] in the paclitaxel group), fatigue (four [11%] vs tw

ACKGROUND: Carboplatin plus paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. A weekly paclitaxel schedule combined with carboplatin every 3 weeks prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in a Japanese phase 3 trial. The aim of our study was to assess whether a weekly schedule of carboplatin plus paclitaxel is more effective than the same drugs given every 3 weeks. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study at 67 institutions in Italy and France. Women with FIGO stage IC-IV ovarian cancer, an ECOG performance status of 2 or lower, and who had never received chemotherapy were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for six cycles or carboplatin (AUC 2 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (60 mg/m(2)) every week for 18 weeks. Randomisation was done by computer-based minimisation, stratified by centre, residual disease after surgery, and ECOG performance status. The study was not blinded. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival and quality of life (assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Trial Outcome Index [FACT-O/TOI] score), and analysis was by modified intention to treat. This report presents the final analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660842. FINDINGS: 822 patients were enrolled into the study between Nov 20, 2008, and March 1, 2012; 12 withdrew their consent immediately after randomisation and were excluded, and 810 were eligible for analysis. 404 women were allocated treatment every 3 weeks and 406 were assigned to the weekly schedule. After median follow-up of 22·3 months (IQR 16·2-30·9), 449 progression-free survival events were recorded. Median progression-free survival was 17·3 months (95% CI 15·2-20·2) in patients assigned to treatment every 3 weeks, versus 18·3 months (16·8-20·9) in women allocated to the we

No abstract available

No abstract available

Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer. © 2011 Fox et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Maintenance therapy is emerging as a treatment strategy in the management of advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Initial trials addressing the question of duration of combination chemotherapy failed to show any overall survival benefit for the prolonged administration over a fixed number of cycles with an increased risk for cumulative toxicity. Nowadays several agents with different ways of administration and a different pattern of toxicity have been formally investigated in the maintenance setting. Maintenance strategies include continuing with an agent already present in the induction regimen or switching to a different one. Taking into consideration that no comparative trials of maintenance with different chemotherapy drugs or targeted agents have been conducted, the choice and the duration of maintenance agents is largely empirical. Furthermore, it is still unknown and it remains an open question if this approach needs to be proposed to every patient in the case of partial/complete response or stable disease after the induction therapy. Here, we critically review available data on maintenance treatment, discussing the possibility to tailor the right treatment to the right patient, in an attempt to optimize costs and benefits of an ever-growing panel of different treatment options.

Gefitinib is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Since 2004, it was clear that a substantial proportion of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) obtaining objective response when treated with gefitinib harbour activating mutations in the EGFR gene. Consequently, EGFR mutation has been widely studied, together with other molecular characteristics, as a potential predictive factor for gefitinib efficacy. As of August 2010, four East Asian randomized phase III trials comparing gefitinib to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for first-line treatment have been reported or published. Two of these trials were conducted without a molecular selection in patients with clinical characteristics (adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smoking) characterized by higher prevalence of EGFR mutation. In patients selected for the presence of tumor harbouring EGFR mutation, the administration of first-line gefitinib, as compared to standard chemotherapy, was associated with longer progression-free survival, higher objective response rate, a more favourable toxicity profile and better quality of life. The relevant improvement in progression-free survival with first-line administration of gefitinib has been confirmed in the other two randomized trials, dedicated to cases with EGFR mutation. In July 2009, European Medicines Agency granted marketing authorization for gefitinib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with sensitizing mutations of the EGFR gene, across all lines of therapy. Gefitinib currently represents the best first-line treatment option for this molecularly selected subgroup of patients.

Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer. © 2011 Fox et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Objectives: Adjuvant treatment for stage III endometrial cancer is not yet defined. Previous experiences support the usefulness of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The aim of this retrospective study was to describe the outcome in a cohort of patients with stage III endometrial cancer treated with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with stage III endometrial cancer from 1998 to 2009 was conducted. The impact on relapse-free survival of clinical and pathological variables and adjuvant treatment received was analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: Eighty-two patients were considered. Median age was 62 years (range 38-82). Seventy-eight (95%) patients received an adjuvant treatment: chemotherapy (41; 50%), radiotherapy (18; 22%), or combined chemo-radiotherapy (19; 23%). Four patients were excluded from analysis because they were not treated with any adjuvant therapy. At univariate analysis, tumor grade (G3 vs. G1-G2; p = 0.003) was associated with risk of recurrence; similarly, patients treated with radiotherapy alone (p = 0.031, hazard ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.86) or chemotherapy alone (p = 0.053, hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.01) had a significantly higher risk for relapse, compared to those treated with the multimodality approach. Relapse-free survival at 3 years was 86.5, 65.8 and 44.1%, with the multimodality approach, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, respectively. At multivariable analysis, age and grading were independently associated with recurrence-free survival. Hazard ratio for relapse-free survival was 0.14 (95% CI 0.02-1.04) and 0.20 (95% CI 0.04-1.11) for multimodality treatment compared to chemotherapy alone and radiotherapy alone, respectively. Conclusions: Age and grading are independent prognostic factors. A combined approach with radiotherapy and chemotherapy may induce an advantage in relapse-free survival compared to radiotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Prospective

Carboplatin/paclitaxel is the standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer-2 (MITO-2), an academic multicenter phase III trial, tested whether carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was more effective than standard chemotherapy.

Since 2002, date of publication of the previous Italian Society of Haematology (SIE) practice guidelines for management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), novel disease-modifying treatments have been introduced and the SIE commissioned an update.After a comprehensive review of the medical literature published since January 2001, the Expert Panel formulated recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric MDS, graded according to the available evidence.The major updates are: first-line hypomethylating agents in patients with INT2-high-risk disease; controlled use of first-line lenalidomide in low-INT1 risk transfusion-dependent patients with 5q deletion; deferasirox in low-INT1 patients with a relevant transfusional load; first-line high-dose ESA in low-INT1 patients with Hb < 10 g/dl and endogenous EPO < 500 U/l; allogeneic HSCT first-line therapy for INT2- and high-risk patients <65 years without severe co morbidities. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.