Search

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100973.]., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Aim: To identify barriers between health and communication in oncology in order to promote the best possible practice. The areas of communication to be focused on are communication directly with the patient, communication within the scientific community, and communication with the media., Material and Methods: A working group including eminent experts from the national mass media, healthcare system, and patients' advocacy has been established on behalf of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), with the aim of developing suitable recommendations for the best communication in oncology. A literature search has been conducted selecting primary studies related to the best practices applied to communication in oncology. Subsequent to having identified the most representative statements, through a consensus conference using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi method, the panel evaluated the relevance of each statement to support useful strategies to develop effective communication between oncologist physicians and patients, communication within the scientific community, and communication with media outlets, including social media., Results: A total of 292 statements have been extracted from 100 articles. Following an evaluation of relevance, it was found that among the 142 statements achieving the highest scores, 30 of these have been considered of particular interest by the panel., Conclusions: This consensus and the arising document represent an attempt to strengthen the strategic alliance between key figures in communication, identifying high-impact recommendations for the management of communication in oncology with respect to patients, the wider scientific community, and the media., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Generalizability of registrative clinical trials to real-world clinical practice is influenced by comparability of patients in the two settings. We compared characteristics of cancer patients in registrative trials with real-world clinical practice in Italy., Methods: Data on age, sex and performance status (PS) were derived from web-based monitoring registries developed by Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and corresponding registrative trials reported in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPAR) of European Medicines Agency (EMA). Weighted means were calculated in registries and trials and differences were described. Multivariate analysis was performed using Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis., Findings: From January, 2013 to April, 2023, 419,461 unique pairs of patients and therapeutic indications were recorded in 129 AIFA registries. Within 140 related trials, 87,452 patients had been enrolled. Median age and rate of elderly (≥65 years old) patients were higher in monitoring registries than in clinical trials [mean difference of median age 5.3 years, p < 0.001; mean difference of elderly rate 17.17% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48)]. Overall, rate of female patients was not different between registries and trials [mean difference -0.55% (95% CI -1.06, -0.05)]. Mean rate of patients with deteriorated PS was low both in trials (3.1%) and in registries (4.3%) with a mean difference of 1.27% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48). Two clusters were identified with multivariate analysis: one including more registries (higher median age and elderly rate, lower female rate, higher rate of deteriorated patients), the other more trials (lower median age and elderly rate, higher female rate, lower rate of deteriorated patients)., Interpretation: This study supports that cancer patients enrolled in trials do only partially represent those who have been treated in Italy in clinical practice. Inclusiveness of registrative trials should be increased to ensure generalizability of results to real-world population., Funding: Partially supported by Italian Ministry of Health., Competing Interests: SC declares: support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis and Roche; payment for participation on advisory board from EliLilly and AstraZeneca; leadership in scientific society: President of AIOM 2021–2023. MCP declares: institutional grants or contracts from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astellas, Pfizer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Menarini. MDM declares: institutional grants or contracts from Tesaro/GSK, Beigene, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; fees for consulting or participation in advisory board from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Merck, Takeda. FP declares: institutional grants or contracts from Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Incyte, Tesaro/GSK, Merck; consulting fees from Bayer, Pierre Fabre, Astra Zeneca, Incyte, Ipsen, Clovis, Astellas, Sanofi, Roche, Pfizer; leadership in scientific society: President of AIOM 2023–2025. All the other Authors declare no potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Patients with cancer can be immunocompromised because of their disease and/or due to anticancer therapy. In this population, severe influenza virus infections are associated with an elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. Influenza vaccination is therefore highly recommended in cancer patients, including those receiving anticancer therapy. However, vaccination coverage remains far below the recommended target for vulnerable subjects. Six specialists in oncology, hematology, immunology, and public health/vaccinology convened with the objective of developing strategies, based on evidence and clinical experience, for improving influenza vaccination coverage in cancer patients. This viewpoint provides an overview of current influenza vaccination recommendations in cancer patients, discusses barriers to vaccination coverage, and presents strategies for overcoming said barriers. New immunization issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic are also addressed. Future directions include improving public education on influenza vaccination, providing the media with accurate information, improving knowledge among healthcare professionals, improving access to vaccines for cancer patients, co-administration of the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, increased collaboration between oncologists and other health professionals, increased accessibility of digital vaccination registries to specialists, shared information platforms, and promoting immunization campaigns by healthcare systems with the support of scientific societies.

Transgender and gender-diverse individuals experience substantial health disparities across the cancer care continuum. Despite well recognized unique healthcare needs, there are barriers in accessing cancer prevention and treatment services, influenced by disadvantages in key social-economic determinants of health which result in worse clinical outcomes, as compared to the general population. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) acknowledges the critical relevance of this issue. The " Assisi Recommendations " here summarize the outcomes of the "AIOM Oncology Ethics Day" dedicated to gender differences in oncology and cancer care of transgender and gender-diverse people. The recommendations generated during a 2-day multidisciplinary discussion address the various aspects of cancer care experience of transgender and gender-diverse people. The promotion of research in this field, through the generation of new evidence and the collection of prospective data, has been identified as a priority action to mitigate these disparities. By acknowledging the challenges of cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse people and recognizing the need for dedicated policy and clinical recommendations, AIOM demonstrates its commitment to improving the health and well-being of all patients with cancer, regardless of their gender identity or any other personal or social circumstances, as part of health-for-all societal vision., Competing Interests: ML acted in a consulting/advisory role for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), Seagen, Gilead, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca and received speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Ipsen, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Knight, Daiichi Sankyo, received a travel grant from Gilead and Daiichi Sankyo, and a research grant (to the institution) from Gilead, all outside the submitted work. FPe reports grants from Roche and Pfizer; personal fees from Sandoz, Celgene, Pierre Fabre, and Janssen Cilag; grants and personal fees from Incyte and AstraZeneca; and grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Bayer. NLV reports grants from Eisai; speaker bureau, from GSK; travel expenses for conferences from Gentili, Celgene, Pfizer; advisory role from Novartis and Celgene; advisor role, travel expenses for conference from Pfizer; advisory board from MSD, Roche, Novartis, and Astrazeneca. DD reports grants from Gentili, and travel expenses from Roche, Gentili, and Eisai. FM received honoraria from Servier. Lilly, Pierre-Fabre; research grant from Incyte. MDM received honoraria from Pfizer, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Eisai, Novartis, Roche, Astellas Pharma, MSD, Lilly, Merck, Amgen; research grants from Tesaro and GlaxoSmithKline; acted in a consulting/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Eisai, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Amgen. FPi received honoraria from Amgen, Merck-Serono, Bayer, Servier, Takeda, MSD, BMS, Astellas, Organon, Pierre-Fabre; research grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Incyte, Agenus, Amgen. RBe received honoraria and/or research grant from: BI, EISAI, MSD, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, GSK, BMS, Otsuka, Seagen. GDB received honoraria and/or research grants from Roche, MSD, Tahio, Servier, Celgene, Ipsen, Sanofi; acted in consultory/advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Eisai, Incyte; has served as speaker for Servier, Clovis Oncology, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Amgen, Novartis, BMS. MM declares ELMA is a for-profit agency. The other authors declare no conflict of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) population represents an underserved group across the cancer care continuum. To assess the perspective of both oncology health care providers (OHPs) and TGD individuals in Italy, we conducted two national surveys: one among 2407 OHPs about their attitudes, knowledge and behavior toward TGD patients, and one among TGD persons about their health needs, experiences and barriers encountered in the use of health services across the cancer continuum., Materials and Methods: The surveys were self-compiled web-based computer-aided web interview, conducted in Italy within the 'OncoGender-Promoting Inclusion in Oncology' project, led by the Italian national cancer society [Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)]-associated researchers. All members of AIOM were invited by e-mail to participate in the OHP survey. TGD persons were reached through advocacy groups and consumers' panel. The recruitment was completed on a voluntary basis. Survey data were collected and managed using an online platform managed by ELMA Research, an independent pharmaceutical marketing agency., Results: A total of 305 OHPs (13% of AIOM members) and 190 TGD individuals participated in the surveys. Only 19% of OHPs felt competent in providing care to TGD patients and 21% declared not to feel comfortable in treating TGD patients. Seventy-one percent of TGD persons reported that they had never joined any cancer screening program; 32% reported one or more acts of discrimination by health care providers. Seventy-two percent of OHPs recognized the lack of specific education on cancer care for TGD patients and deemed it necessary to receive adequate training., Conclusions: A general lack of knowledge among OHPs about TGD health issues seems to be the main driver of difficulties in providing assistance and of discriminatory attitudes against TGD individuals. Ultimately, this whole issue generates access barriers and contributes to lack of trust in health care services. Educational interventions and an implementation of person-centric cancer policies are urgently needed., Competing Interests: Disclosure ML acted in a consulting/advisory role for Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), Seagen, Gilead, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca and received speakers’ honoraria from Takeda, Ipsen, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Knight. FPe reports grants from Roche and Pfizer; personal fees from Sandoz, Celgene, Pierre Fabre and Janssen Cilag; grants and personal fees from Incyte and AstraZeneca; and grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer. NLV reports grants from Eisai; speaker bureau from GSK; travel expenses for conferences from Gentili, Celgene, Pfizer; advisory role from Novartis and Celgene; advisor role, travel expenses for conference from Pfizer; advisory board from MSD, Roche, Novartis and Astrazeneca. DD reports grants from Gentili, and travel expenses from Roche, Gentili and Eisai. FM has served as speaker for Servier. MDM received honoraria from Pfizer, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Eisai, Novartis, Roche, Astellas Pharma, MSD; research grants from Tesaro and GlaxoSmithKline; acted in a consulting/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Eisai, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Amgen. FPi received honoraria from Amgen, Merck-Serono, Sanofi, Lilly, Bayer, Servier, Astrazeneca, MSD, BMS, Astellas, Organon, Pierre-Fabre; research grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Incyte, Agenus. RB received honoraria and/or research grant from BI, EISAI, MSD, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, GSK, BMS. GDB received honoraria and/or research grants from Roche, MSD, Tahio, Servier, Celgene, Ipsen, Sanofi; acted in consultory/advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Eisai, Incyte; has served as speaker for Servier, Clovis Oncology, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Amgen, Novartis, BMS. MM declares ELMA is a for-profit agency. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Patients with cancer have a well-known and higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). VPDs may cause severe complications in this setting due to immune system impairment, malnutrition and oncological treatments. Despite this evidence, vaccination rates are inadequate. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology [Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)] has been involved in vaccination awareness since 2014. Based on a careful review of the available data about the immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of flu, pneumococcal and anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, we report the recommendations of the AIOM about these vaccinations in adult patients with solid tumors. The AIOM recommends comprehensive education on the issue of VPDs. We believe that a multidisciplinary care model may improve the vaccination coverage in immunocompromised patients. Continued surveillance, implementation of preventive practices and future well-designed immunological prospective studies are essential for better management of our patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected cancer care and research by disrupting the prevention and treatment paths as well as the preclinical, clinical, and translational research ecosystem. In Italy, this has been particularly significant given the severity of the pandemic's impact and the intrinsic vulnerabilities of the national health system. However, whilst detrimental, disruption can also be constructive and may stimulate innovation and progress. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has recognized the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care continuum and research and proposes the '2021 Matera statement' which aims at providing pragmatic guidance for policymakers and health care institutions to mitigate the impact of the global health crisis on Italian oncology and design the recovery plan for the post-pandemic scenario. The interventions are addressed both to the pillars (prevention, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, health care professionals) and foundations of cancer care (communication and care relationship, system organization, resources, research, networking). The priorities to be implemented can be summarized in the MATERA acronym: Multidisciplinarity; Access to cancer care; Telemedicine and Territoriality; Equity, ethics, education; Research and resources; Alliance between stakeholders and patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Malnutrition is a frequent problem in cancer patients, which leads to prolonged and repeated hospitalizations, increased treatment-related toxicity, reduced response to cancer treatment, impaired quality of life, a worse overall prognosis and the avoidable waste of health care resources. Despite being perceived as a limiting factor in oncologic treatments by both oncologists and patients, there is still a considerable gap between need and actual delivery of nutrition care, and attitudes still vary considerably among health care professionals. In the last 5 years, the Italian Intersociety Working Group for Nutritional Support in Cancer Patients (WG), has repeatedly revisited this issue and has concluded that some improvement in nutritional care in Italy has occurred, at least with regard to awareness and institutional activities. In the same period, new international guidelines for the management of malnutrition and cachexia have been released. Despite these valuable initiatives, effective structural strategies and concrete actions aimed at facing the challenging issues of nutritional care in oncology are still needed, requiring the active participation of scientific societies and health authorities. As a continuation of the WG's work, we have reviewed available data present in the literature from January 2016 to September 2021, together with the most recent guidelines issued by scientific societies and health authorities, thus providing an update of the 2016 WG practical recommendations, with suggestions for new areas/issues for possible improvement and implementation., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists., (© The author(s).)

The increasing number of examinations and interventional radiological procedures that require the administration of contrast medium (CM) in patients at risk for advanced age and/or comorbidities highlights the problem of CM-induced renal toxicity. A multidisciplinary group consisting of specialists of different disciplines-radiologists, nephrologists and oncologists, members of the respective Italian Scientific Societies-agreed to draw up this position paper, to assist clinicians increasingly facing the challenges posed by CM-related renal dysfunction in their daily clinical practice.The major risk factor for acute renal failure following CM administration (post-CM AKI) is the preexistence of renal failure, particularly when associated with diabetes, heart failure or cancer.In accordance with the recent guidelines ESUR, the present document reaffirms the importance of renal risk assessment through the evaluation of the renal function (eGFR) measured on serum creatinine and defines the renal risk cutoff when the eGFR is < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 for procedures with intravenous (i.v.) or intra-arterial (i.a.) administration of CM with renal contact at the second passage (i.e., after CM dilution with the passage into the pulmonary circulation).The cutoff of renal risk is considered an eGFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 in patients undergoing i.a. administration with first-pass renal contact (CM injected directly into the renal arteries or in the arterial district upstream of the renal circulation) or in particularly unstable patients such as those admitted to the ICU.Intravenous hydration using either saline or Na bicarbonate solution before and after CM administration represents the most effective preventive measure in patients at risk of post-CM AKI. In the case of urgency, the infusion of 1.4% sodium bicarbonate pre- and post-CM may be more appropriate than the administration of saline.In cancer patients undergoing computed tomography, pre- and post-CM hydration should be performed when the eGFR is < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 and it is also advisable to maintain a 5 to 7 days interval with respect to the administration of cisplatin and to wait 14 days before administering zoledronic acid.In patients with more severe renal risk (i.e., with eGFR < 20 ml/min/1.73 m2), particularly if undergoing cardiological interventional procedures, the prevention of post-CM AKI should be implemented through an internal protocol shared between the specialists who treat the patient.In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using gadolinium CM, there is a lower risk of AKI than with iodinated CM, particularly if doses < 0.1 mmol/kg body weight are used and in patients with eGFR > 30 ml/min/1.73 m2. Dialysis after MRI is indicated only in patients already undergoing chronic dialysis treatment to reduce the potential risk of systemic nephrogenic fibrosis., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies derived from neuroendocrine cells that can occur anywhere along the gastrointestinal tract. GEP-NETs incidence has been steadily increasing over the past decades, in parallel with the increasing incidence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS). It is not yet fully known whether the MetS components (such as obesity, dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes) could be involved in the etiology of GEP-NETs or could influence their outcomes. In this review, a panel of experts of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Medical Diabetologists (AMD), Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE), and Italian Society of Pharmacology (SIF) provides a critical view of the experimental and clinical evidence about the association of GEP-NETs risk, outcomes, and therapies with the metabolic disorders typical of MetS. The potential therapeutic strategies for an optimal management of patients with both GEP-NETs and MetS are also discussed., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The personalized medicine is in a rapidly evolving scenario. The identification of actionable mutations is revolutionizing the therapeutic landscape of tumors. The morphological and histological tumor features are enriched by the extensive genomic profiling, and the first tumor-agnostic drugs have been approved regardless of tumor histology, guided by predictive and druggable genetic alterations. This new paradigm of "mutational oncology", presents a great potential to change the oncologic therapeutic scenario, but also some critical aspects need to be underlined. A process governance is mandatory to ensure the genomic testing accuracy and homogeneity, the economic sustainability, and the regulatory issues, ultimately granting the possibility of translating this model in the "real world". In this position paper, based on experts' opinion, the AIOM-SIAPEC-IAP-SIBIOC-SIF Italian Scientific Societies revised the new agnostic biomarkers, the diagnostic technologies available, the current availability of agnostic drugs and their present indication., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Patients with advanced gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) have poor survival outcomes, and GEJC-specific data from trials evaluating agents in gastric cancers (GCs) as a whole are lacking. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) was approved for previously treated metastatic GC or GEJC (mGC/mGEJC) based on results of the phase 3 TAGS trial. Subgroup analyses by primary tumor type (GC or GEJC) in TAGS are reported here., Methods: Pa tients with mGC/mGEJC treated with  ≥ 2 prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized (2:1) to receive FTD/TPI or placebo, plus best supportive care. A pre-planned sub-analysis was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes by primary tumor type (GEJC or GC)., Results: Of 507 randomized patients, 145 (29%) had GEJC and 360 (71%) had GC as the primary disease site. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the GEJC and GC subgroups, except that more patients in the GEJC subgroup had received  ≥ 3 prior regimens (72 vs. 59% in the GC subgroup). Survival benefit with FTD/TPI was observed in both subgroups. The overall survival hazard ratio for FTD/TPI vs placebo was 0.75 (95% CI 0.50-1.11) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.52-0.87) in the GEJC and GC subgroups, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events of any cause were reported in 75 (77%) and 192 (81%) FTD/TPI-treated patients in the GEJC and GC subgroups, respectively. No new safety concerns were noted with FTD/TPI., Conclusion: As in patients with GC, FTD/TPI showed an efficacy benefit in patients with GEJC in the TAGS trial, along with demonstrating a manageable safety profile.

Background: Identifying the patients who may benefit the most from immune checkpoints inhibitors remains a great challenge for clinicians. Here we investigate on blood serum amyloid A (SAA) as biomarker of response to upfront pembrolizumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% receiving upfront pembrolizumab (P cohort) and with PD-L1 0-49% treated with chemotherapy (CT cohort) were evaluated for blood SAA and radiological response at baseline and every 9 weeks. Endpoints were response rate (RR) according to RECIST1.1, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The most accurate SAA cut-off to predict response was established with ROC analysis in the P cohort., Results: In the P Cohort (n = 42), the overall RR was 38%. After a median follow-up of 18.5 months (mo), baseline SAA ≤ the ROC-derived cut-off (29.9 mg/L; n = 28/42.67%) was significantly associated with higher RR (53.6 versus 7.1%; OR15, 95% CI 1.72-130.7, p = 0.009), longer PFS (17.4 versus 2.1 mo; p < 0.0001) and OS (not reached versus 7.2mo; p < 0.0001) compared with SAA > 29.9 mg/L. In multivariate analysis, low SAA positively affects PFS (p = 0.001) and OS (p = 0.048) irrespective of ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites and pleural effusion. SAA monitoring (n = 40) was also significantly associated with survival endpoints: median PFS 17.4 versus 2.1 mo and median OS not reached versus 7.2 mo when SAA remained low (n = 14) and high (n = 12), respectively. In the CT Cohort (n = 30), RR was not affected by SAA level (p > 0.05) while low SAA at baseline (n = 17) was associated with better PFS (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16-0.90, p = 0.006) and OS (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.67, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Low SAA predicts good survival outcomes irrespective of treatment for advanced NSCLC patients and higher likelihood of response to upfront pembrolizumab only. The strong prognostic value might be exploited to easily identify patients most likely to benefit from immunotherapy. A further study (FoRECATT-2) is ongoing to confirm results in a larger sample size and to investigate the effect of SAA on immune response in vitro assays.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a common cause of cancer-related death, due to difficulties in detecting early-stage disease, to its aggressive behaviour, and to poor response to systemic therapy. Therefore, developing strategies for early diagnosis of resectable PC is critical for improving survival. Diabetes mellitus is another major public health problem worldwide. Furthermore, diabetes can represent both a risk factor and a consequence of PC: nowadays, the relationship between these two diseases is considered a high priority for research. New-onset diabetes can be an early manifestation of PC, especially in a thin adult without a family history of diabetes. However, even if targeted screening for patients at higher risk of PC could be a promising approach, this is not recommended in asymptomatic adults with new-onset diabetes, due to the much higher incidence of hyperglycaemia than PC and to the lack of a safe and affordable PC screening test. Prompted by a well-established and productive multidisciplinary cooperation, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), the Italian Medical Diabetologists Association (AMD), the Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE), and the Italian Society of Pharmacology (SIF) here review available evidence on the mechanisms linking diabetes and PC, addressing the feasibility of screening for early PC in patients with diabetes, and sharing a set of update statements with the aim of providing a state-of-the-art overview and a decision aid tool for daily clinical practice., Competing Interests: Disclosure SA has served as a consultant for Menarini. GB has served as consultant for Roche, Servier, Celgene, Ipsen, Sanofi, Merck Serono. NS has served as a consultant for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Isheo, Iquvia. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Most anticancer molecules are administered in body-size-based dosing schedules, bringing up unsolved issues regarding pharmacokinetic data in heavy patients. The worldwide spread of obesity has not been matched by improved methods and strategies for tailored drug dosage in this population. The weight or body surface area (BSA)-based approaches may fail to fully reflect the complexity of the anthropometric features besides obesity in cancer patients suffering from sarcopenia. Likewise, there is a lack of pharmacokinetic data on obese patients for the majority of chemotherapeutic agents as well as for new target drugs and immunotherapy. Therefore, although the available findings point to the role of dose intensity in cancer treatment, and support full weight-based dosing, empirical dose capping often occurs in clinical practice in order to avoid toxicity. Thus a panel of experts of the Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM), Associazione Medici Diabetologi (AMD), Società Italiana Endocrinologia (SIE), and Società Italiana Farmacologia (SIF), provides here a consensus statement for appropriate cytotoxic chemotherapy and new biological cancer drug dosing in obese patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure NS has served as consultant for Celgene and Isheo. GB has served as consultant for Roche, Servier, Celgene, Ipsen, Sanofi, Merck Serono. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The term liquid biopsy (LB) refers to the use of various biological fluids as a surrogate for neoplastic tissue to achieve information for diagnostic, prognostic and predictive purposes. In the current clinical practice, LB is used for the identification of driver mutations in circulating tumor DNA derived from both tumor tissue and circulating neoplastic cells. As suggested by a growing body of evidence, however, there are several clinical settings where biological samples other than tissue could be used in the routine practice to identify potentially predictive biomarkers of either response or resistance to targeted treatments. New applications are emerging as useful clinical tools, and other blood derivatives, such as circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor RNA, microRNAs, platelets, extracellular vesicles, as well as other biofluids such as urine and cerebrospinal fluid, may be adopted in the near future. Despite the evident advantages compared with tissue biopsy, LB still presents some limitations due to both biological and technological issues. In this context, the absence of harmonized procedures corresponds to an unmet clinical need, ultimately affecting the rapid implementation of LB in clinical practice. In this position paper, based on experts' opinions, the AIOM-SIAPEC-IAP-SIBIOC-SIF Italian Scientific Societies critically discuss the most relevant technical issues of LB, the current and emerging evidences, with the aim to optimizing the applications of LB in the clinical setting., Competing Interests: Disclosure GB: Consulting fees: Lilly, Eisai, Incyte, Servier; honoraria for presentations: Clovis Oncology, Merck; support for attending meetings: Roche, Ipsen, Celgene, Servier, Sanofi; advisory board: Eisai. MF: Grants: QED Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma; consulting fees: Diaceutics, Tesaro-GSK, Astellas Pharma. UM: Personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Amgen, Merck, Eli Lilly, Thermo Fisher, Diaceutics for participation in a speaker bureau or for acting in an advisory role, outside the submitted work. NN: Grants: Merck, Sysmex, Thermo Fisher, QIAGEN, Roche, AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Illumina; honoraria for presentations: MSD, QIAGEN, Bayer, Biocartis, Illumina, Incyte, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Thermo Fisher, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Eli Lilly; Other financial or non-financial interests: President, International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path); President, Italian Cancer Society (SIC). NS: Honoraria for presentations: MSD, Roche, Isheo, Iquvia. GR: honoraria for presentations: Pfizer, Novartis; advisory boards: Eli Lilly, Amgen, MSD. AR: Honorarium for advisory boards: Bristol, Pfizer, Bayer, Kyowa Kirin, Ambrosetti; Speaker honorarium: Roche Diagnostic. AS-B: Advisory Board: Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Servier, MSD. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of combination chemotherapy has not yet been established in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) lacking dedicated randomized trials., Methods: This phase II trial tested the efficacy of Nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P)/Gemcitabine (G) versus G alone. Patients were randomized, 1:1 to G 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days versus NAB-P 125 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days plus G 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days. Disease progression rate after three cycles of chemotherapy was the primary end-point. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rate were secondary end-points., Findings: A total of124 patients were enrolled. The study showed a reduction of a progressive disease from 45.6% with G to 25.4% with NAB-P/G (P = 0.01) at 3 months. Noteworthy, at 6 months in the G arm, 35.6% of patients present a metastatic spread versus 20.8% in the NAB/G arm. The response rate was 5.3% in the G arm and 27% in the NAB/G arm. Median PFS was 4 months for the G arm and 7 months for the NAB-P/G arm. Median OS was 10.6 in the G arm and 12.7 months in the NAB-P/G arm. One patient died during treatment with G due to a stroke., Interpretation: NAB-P/G reduced the rate of LAPC patients progressing after three cycles of chemotherapy compared with G, especially in terms of distant relapses. It positively affects PFS. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial providing evidence that combination chemotherapy is superior to gemcitabine alone in this setting. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT02043730., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Dr Cascinu reports grants from Celegne during the conduct of the study; other from Celegne; other from Servier, outside the submitted work; and the remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

High mortality rates in elderly patients or in those with underlying chronic illnesses and/or a compromised immune system is a peculiar feature of COVID-19 infection. The possible coexistence of a cancer and COVID-19 infection in the same individual prompted concerns regarding their synergistic effect on prognosis. In order to balance patients' needs with the risks related to the infection, the question oncologists have asked from the beginning of the first wave of the pandemic has been: 'how can we deal with COVID-19 infection in cancer patients?' In pursuing its mission, the Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM) has made every possible effort to support cancer patients, health care professionals and institutions in the decision-making processes the pandemic has engendered within this scenario. The relevant documents as well as the educational and institutional initiatives the AIOM has taken are reported in this article., Competing Interests: Disclosure NS has served as a consultant for Celgene and Isheo; MDM has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Janssen, Astellas, Elisai; UDG has served as a consultant for Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Bayer, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); MT has served as a consultant for Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis; DG has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Ipsen, Novartis, Merck; RC has served as a consultant for Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD; NLV has served as a consultant for Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Gentili, Celgene, EISAI, MSD; LDM has served as a consultant for Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Takeda, Celgene, Eisai, Genomic Health, General Electrics, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca; FP has served as consultant for Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Janssen Cilag, Ipsen; SC has served as consultant for Eli Lilly; GB has served as consultant for Roche, Servier, Celgene, Ipsen, Sanofi, Merck Serono. AR has declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: To evaluate the prognostic role of chest computed tomography (CT), alone or in combination with clinical and laboratory parameters, in COVID-19 patients during the first peak of the pandemic., Methods: A retrospective single-center study of 301 COVID-19 patients referred to our Emergency Department (ED) from February 25 to March 29, 2020. At presentation, patients underwent chest CT and clinical and laboratory examinations. Outcomes included discharge from the ED after improvement/recovery (positive outcome), or admission to the intensive care unit or death (poor prognosis). A visual quantitative analysis was formed using two scores: the Pulmonary Involvement (PI) score based on the extension of lung involvement, and the Pulmonary Consolidation (PC) score based on lung consolidation. The prognostic value of CT alone or integrated with other parameters was studied by logistic regression and ROC analysis., Results: The impact of the CT PI score [≥15 vs. ≤ 6] on predicting poor prognosis (OR 5.71 95 % CI 1.93-16.92, P = 0.002) was demonstrated; no significant association was found for the PC score. Chest CT had a prognostic role considering the PI score alone (AUC 0.722) and when evaluated with demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory data (AUC 0.841). We, therefore, developed a nomogram as an easy tool for immediate clinical application., Conclusions: Visual analysis of CT gives useful information to physicians for prognostic evaluations, even in conditions of COVID-19 emergency. The predictive value is increased by evaluating CT in combination with clinical and laboratory data., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

About 75% of colorectal cancers are diagnosed as early stage, in which radical surgery is achievable. In the last decade, in Italy, the overall incidence of colorectal cancer has remained stable, while mortality gradually decreased, which is attributable to early diagnosis and improved medical, surgical and locoregional treatments. The Italian Medical Oncology Association formulated guidelines to manage early-stage colon cancer, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, which we herein present., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

In cases of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome, an excessive host inflammatory response has been reported, with elevated serum interleukin-6 levels. In this multicenter retrospective cohort study we included adult patients with COVID-19, need of respiratory support, and elevated C-reactive protein who received intravenous tocilizumab in addition to standard of care. Control patients not receiving tocilizumab were matched for sex, age and respiratory support. We selected survival as the primary endpoint, along with need for invasive ventilation, thrombosis, hemorrhage, and infections as secondary endpoints at 30 days. We included 64 patients with COVID-19 in the tocilizumab group and 64 matched controls. At baseline the tocilizumab group had longer symptom duration (13 ± 5 vs. 9 ± 5 days) and received hydroxychloroquine more often than controls (100% vs. 81%). The mortality rate was similar between groups (27% with tocilizumab vs. 38%) and at multivariable analysis risk of death was not significantly influenced by tocilizumab (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.33-1.15), while being associated with the use at baseline of non invasive mechanical or invasive ventilation, and the presence of comorbidities. Among secondary outcomes, tocilizumab was associated with a lower probability of requiring invasive ventilation (hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.83; P = 0.017) but not with the risk of thrombosis, bleeding, or infections. The use of intravenous tocilizumab was not associated with changes in 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 severe respiratory impairment. Among the secondary outcomes there was less use of invasive ventilation in the tocilizumab group., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The growing insights in the next-generation immunotherapy and the state-of-the-art advancement in targeted-agents significantly improved clinical outcome of cancer patients by pointing towards a unexplored Achilles' heel. Novel toxicity profiles have been uncovered, representing unmet medical needs. Thus, a panel of expert provide comprehensive pharmacological and clinical evidence, to provide a patient-tailored approach to metabolic adverse events associated with novel anti-cancer treatments. Prompted by the need of a multidisciplinary cooperation, a working group of Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM), Associazione Medici Diabetologi (AMD) and Società Italiana Farmacologia (SIF) examined the available literature data. The identification of patient risk profile and the characterization of metabolic effects of novel anti-tumour drugs is clearly a clinical challenge that can be addressed by a multidisciplinary clinical approach. Therefore, this review pinpoints the relevance of the challenging profiling of the patient suffering from dysmetabolic conditions induced by the novel therapeutics in medical oncology., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) treatment has shown clinical benefit in patients with pretreated metastatic gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer (mGC/GEJC). Patients who have undergone gastrectomy constitute a significant proportion of patients with mGC/GEJC., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI among patients with previously treated mGC/GEJC who had or had not undergone gastrectomy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This preplanned subgroup analysis of TAGS (TAS-102 Gastric Study), a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial included patients with mGC/GEJC who had received at least 2 previous chemotherapy regimens, and was conducted at 110 academic hospitals in 17 countries in Europe, Asia, and North America, with enrollment between February 24, 2016, and January 5, 2018; the data cutoff was March 31, 2018., Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive oral FTD/TPI 35 mg/m2 twice daily or placebo twice daily with best supportive care on days 1 through 5 and days 8 through 12 of each 28-day treatment cycle., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival. This subgroup analysis was conducted to examine potential trends and was not powered for statistical significance. Efficacy and safety end points were evaluated in the subgroups., Results: Of 507 randomized patients (369 [72.8%] male; mean [SD] age, 62.5 [10.5] years), 221 (43.6%) had undergone gastrectomy (147 randomized to FTD/TPI and 74 to placebo) and 286 (56.4%) had not undergone gastrectomy (190 randomized to FTD/TPI and 96 to placebo). In the gastrectomy subgroup, the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) in the FTD/TPI group vs placebo group was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.41-0.79), and the progression-free survival HR was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35-0.65). In the no gastrectomy subgroup, the overall survival HR in the FTD/TPI group vs placebo group was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.06), and the progression-free survival HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.85). Among FTD/TPI-treated patients, grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 122 of 145 patients (84.1%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 145 of 190 (76.3%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup: 64 (44.1%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 50 (26.3%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup had grade 3 or higher neutropenia, 31 (21.4%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 33 (17.4%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup had grade 3 or higher anemia, and 21 (14.5%) in the gastrectomy subgroup and 10 (5.3%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup hD grade 3 or higher leukopenia. In the gastrectomy subgroup, 94 (64.8%) had dosing modifications because of adverse events vs 101 (53.2%) in the no gastrectomy subgroup; 15 (10.3%) in the gastrectomy group and 28 (14.7%) in the no gastrectomy group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Treatment exposure was similar between groups., Conclusions and Relevance: The FTD/TPI treatment was tolerable and provided efficacy benefits among patients with pretreated mGC/GEJC regardless of previous gastrectomy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02500043.

The unexpected outbreak of COVID-19 in the area of Bergamo and the general crisis of personnel and devices has been managed as well as possible during the maximum peak of epidemic; Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital implemented its facilities and organization in order to optimize the treatment of patients. The number of beds in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) was doubled (from 16 to 33), and more than 220 beds were dedicated to the COVID-19 patients. This paper analyzes the factors affecting mortality in 1022 COVID-19 patients who referred to Humanitas Gavazzeni between February 25 and March 26, 2020. A total of 274 (34.9%) fatal events were registered: 202 among those admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and COVID department and 72 among those treated in Acute Admission Unit Level II (AAUl-2) who died before hospital admission. This paper studies 274 dead cases by analyzing patient's characteristics, physiological and laboratory parameters, symptoms, and the scores of severity of the disease. Patients who had fatal events in the AAUL-2 showed the worst parameters of risk. The most important differences regarded the Apache II score, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), CRP (C-reactive protein), pH, creatinine, RR (respiratory rate), and asthenia., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe authors declare that have no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Aim: The association of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and local radiotherapy in EGFR -mutated non-small-cell lung cancer patients experiencing disease progression under TKIs could be a valid an option. Patients & methods: We included 131 patients experiencing disease progression during first-line TKI. In group A, patients received TKI beyond progression and site(s) of progression were irradiated; in group B, patients remained on TKI alone beyond progression; and group C stopped TKI at first disease progression. Results: Median overall survival resulted longer in group A versus B and C (p < 0.0001). Group A had a trend toward a longer second progression-free survival (measured from the time of first progression until second progression) versus group B (p = 0.06). Conclusion: TKI beyond progression in association with local ablative treatment is a valid treatment option in oligoprogressive patients.

Monoclonal antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have demonstrated efficacy with chemotherapy (CT) as second line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The right sequence of the treatments in all RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild type (wt) patients has not precisely defined. We evaluated the impact of aforementioned targeted therapies in second line setting, analyzing efficacy and safety data from phase III clinical trials. We performed both direct and indirect comparisons between anti-EGFR and anti-VEGF. Outcomes included disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and G3-G5 toxicities. Our results showed significantly improved OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) and DCR (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.54) favouring anti-VEGF combinations in overall population; no statistically significant differences in all RAS wt patients was observed (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.09). Anti-EGFR combinations significantly increased ORR in all patients (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96), showing a trend also in all RAS wt patients (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.83). No significant difference in PFS and DCR all RAS was registered. Our results provided for the first time a strong rationale to manage both targeted agents in second line setting.

Background: Common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) predict sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with exon 19 deletions being associated with better outcome compared to L858R mutations. We aimed to investigate the impact of different exon 19 deletions on patient outcome in EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with first-line TKIs., Patients and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, 106 patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 19 deletions and treated with first-line TKIs were included. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), the secondary end point progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were performed by grouping exon 19 deletions according to 2 models: we compared different type of deletion (delE746&#95;A750 vs. deletions other than delE746-A750, defined as "uncommon") or different starting codon of deletion (E746 vs. L747)., Results: The frequency of uncommon deletions of exon 19 was 36%. When delE746&#95;A750 (n = 68) was compared to the other deletions in exon 19 (n = 38), no differences were found, either in terms of OS (P = .65) or PFS (P = .65). Similarly, no difference in OS (P = .74) or PFS (P = .99) emerged when comparing the E746 group (n = 81) to the L747 group (n = 25). On multivariate analysis including clinical characteristics and type of deletions (delE746&#95;A750 vs. uncommon deletions or E746 vs. L747), only the presence of brain metastases at diagnosis or during TKI treatment was associated with shorter PFS but not with worse OS., Conclusion: Different exon 19 deletions are equally sensitive to first-line EGFR-TKIs in EGFR-mutant NSCLC., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil showed activity and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study of pretreated patients with advanced gastric cancer done in Japan. We investigated whether the treatment was efficacious compared with placebo in a global population., Methods: TAGS was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 110 academic hospitals in 17 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, non-resectable, metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma (including adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction) as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging classification (7th edition) who had received at least two previous chemotherapy regimens and had experienced radiological disease progression were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via dynamic randomisation from a centralised interactive voice-response system to receive either oral trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1-5 and days 8-12 every 28 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care. Participants were allocated to groups by study-site personnel. Randomisation was stratified by region (Japan vs rest of world), ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), and previous treatment with ramucirumab (yes vs no). Both patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500043. The trial, including follow-up of all participants, has been completed., Findings: Between Feb 24, 2016, and Jan 5, 2018, 507 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 337 to the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 170 to the placebo group. Median overall survival was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·8-6·2) in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 3·6 months (3·1-4·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·69 [95% CI 0·56-0·85]; one-sided p=0·00029, two-sided p=0·00058). Grade 3 or worse adverse events of any cause occurred in 267 (80%) patients in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 97 (58%) in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events of any cause were neutropenia (n=114 [34%]) and anaemia (n=64 [19%]) in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and abdominal pain (n=15 [9%]) and general deterioration of physical health (n=15 [9%]) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 143 (43%) patients in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 70 (42%) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death was reported in each group (because of cardiopulmonary arrest in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and because of toxic hepatitis in the placebo group)., Interpretation: Trifluridine/tipiracil significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo and was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated population of patients with advanced gastric cancer. Trifluridine/tipiracil could be a new treatment option in this population who represent a high unmet medical need., Funding: Taiho Oncology and Taiho Pharmaceutical., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide and, although targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors has dramatically improved the rates of response and survival in advanced EGFR-mutated adenocarcinoma, the overall outcome remains unsatisfactory. Therefore, new prognostic factors, preferably simple, inexpensive, and easy to reproduce on a large scale, are needed. We performed a retrospective analysis of our database including 63 western Caucasian patients with advanced EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma and receiving gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib as first- or second-line therapy. Several studies demonstrated a strong link between elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and poor prognosis both in early and advanced stages of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: From January 2011 to December 2015, 63 consecutive elegible patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC were included in this analysis from 5 institutions. The NLR was derived from the absolute neutrophil and the absolute lymphocyte counts of a full blood count and the cutoff value was determined according to the mean NLR level., Results: Despite the small sample analyzed, we found that NLR has a prognostic role for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), reaching a statistically significant difference with a better PFS and OS in the lower NLR group., Conclusions: Pretreatment NLR seems to represent a reliable, simple, and easy to reproduce laboratory tool to predict outcome and response to cancer therapies in this setting of Western Caucasian patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

In the past 15 years, the outcome for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has substantially improved owing to the availability of new cytotoxic and biological agents along with many significant advances in molecular selection, the use of personalised therapy and locoregional treatment, a more widespread sharing of specific professional experiences (multidisciplinary teams with oncologists, surgeons, radiotherapists, radiologists, biologists and pathologists), and the adoption of patient-centred healthcare strategies. The Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM) has developed evidence-based recommendations to help oncologists and all professionals involved in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in their daily clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Introduction: The introduction of biological agents in cancer therapy is changing the progression of metastatic colorectal cancer. Currently, resistance to biological agents is an emerging problem; the progression of the disease is caused by the development of resistant clones. According to some authors, these clones can be re-sensitized to traditional and previously utilized chemotherapy agents. The results of the CORRECT study demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib monotherapy in both KRAS wild type and mutant pretreated patients (pts). Two recent reports showed the potential of reintroduction of chemotherapy, even after treatment with regorafenib., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of clinical data from patients treated with regorafenib at our institution between March 2012 and March 2013. We analysed patient characteristics, KRAS/NRAS status, response to treatment (evaluated by RECIST v1.1 criteria) and survival., Results: Regorafenib was administered to 128 patients, and 11 (8.6%) received post-regorafenib therapy (to our knowledge). Seven (63.6%) patients were wild type for KRAS/NRAS. Post-regorafenib therapy represented for all the patients at least the fourth line: all the pts received both oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, all of them were treated with bevacizumab, and 7 patients also received cetuximab. Eight patients (72.7%) were treated with standard chemotherapy after regorafenib (irinotecan monotherapy, capecitabine plus oxaliplatin or irinotecan, dacarbazine or raltitrexed), while 3 patients received an experimental therapy (clinical trial). Nine of the 11 (81.8%) patients had PD and 2 patients had SD. The median progression-free survival was 1.6+ months (range 0.5-3.5), the median OS post-regorafenib was 2.1+ months (range 0.5-10.2) and the 6-month OS was 27.3%., Conclusion: Our retrospective analysis showed that after regorafenib therapy, re-introduction of chemotherapy is possible. Unfortunately, we reported a high percentage of disease progression beyond regorafenib, which is likely due to the high percentage of heavily pretreated patients (some received four or five types of therapy before regorafenib). We think that regorafenib could represent a chemotherapy resensitizing agent; however, additional studies are needed in patients who have received less pretreatment.

Malnutrition is a frequent problem in cancer patients, which leads to prolonged hospitalization, a higher degree of treatment-related toxicity, reduced response to cancer treatment, impaired quality of life and a worse overall prognosis. The attitude towards this issue varies considerably and many malnourished patients receive inadequate nutritional support. We reviewed available data present in the literature, together with the guidelines issued by scientific societies and health authorities, on the nutritional management of patients with cancer, in order to make suitable and concise practical recommendations for appropriate nutritional support in this patient population. Evidence from the literature suggests that nutritional screening should be performed using validated tools (the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 [NRS 2002], the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool [MUST], the Malnutrition Screening Tool [MST] and the Mini Nutritional Assessment [MNA]), both at diagnosis and at regular time points during the course of disease according to tumor type, stage and treatment. Patients at nutritional risk should be promptly referred for comprehensive nutritional assessment and support to clinical nutrition services or medical personnel with documented skills in clinical nutrition, specifically for cancer patients. Nutritional intervention should be actively managed and targeted for each patient; it should comprise personalized dietary counseling and/or artificial nutrition according to spontaneous food intake, tolerance and effectiveness. Nutritional support may be integrated into palliative care programs. "Alternative hypocaloric anti-cancer diets" (e.g. macrobiotic or vegan diets) should not be recommended as they may worsen nutritional status. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to further our knowledge of the nutritional support required in different care settings for cancer patients.