Search

PURPOSE: Contrast Enhancement Magnetic Resonance (CEMR) and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) are important diagnostic tools to evaluate breast cancer patients, and both are objects of interest in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review was to select publications from the last ten years in order to evaluate the literature contributions related to the frequency of contrast agents used, administration techniques and the presence of adverse reactions. METHODS: We have selected, according to the PRISMA statement, publications reviewed on Pub Med in the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022. The search engine was activated using the following keywords: "CESM", "CEM", "CEDM", "Contrast mammography" for CEM, "DCE-MRI", "Contrast Enhancement MRI" for CEMR, excluding reviews, book chapters and meta-analyses. From the total number of publications, we made a preliminary selection based on titles and abstracts and excluded all articles published in languages other than English and all experimental studies performed on surgical specimen or animal population, as well as all articles for which the extended version was not available. Two readers evaluated all the articles and compiled a pre-compiled form accordingly. RESULTS: After a preliminary collection of 571 CEM publications, 118 articles were selected, relating to an overall population of 21,178 patients. From a total of 3063 CEMR publications, 356 articles relating to an overall population of 45,649 patients were selected. The most used contrast agents are Iohexol for CEM (39.83%) and Gadopentetic acid (Gd-DTPA) for CEMR (32.5%). Regarding the CEM contrast administration protocol, in 84.7% of cases a dose of 1.5 mL/kg was used with an infusion rate of 2–3 mL/s. Regarding the CEMR infusion protocol, in 71% of cases a dose of 1 mmol/kg was used at an infusion rate of 2–4 mL/s. Twelve out of 118 CEM articles reported allergic reactions, involving 29 patients (0.13%). In DCE-MRI, only one out of 356 articles reported allergic reactions, involving two patients (0.004%). No severe reactions were observed in either cohort of exams. CONCLUSIONS: CEM and CEMR are essential contrast methods to evaluate breast diseases. However, from the literature analysis, although there are preferences on the uses of the contrast agent (Iohexol for CESM, G-DTPA for CEMR), a wide range of molecules are still used in contrast methods, with different administration protocols. Based on the collected data, it is possible to state that both methods are safe, and no severe reactions were observed in our evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevalence of malignant cells in clinical specimens, or tumour purity, is affected by both intrinsic biological factors and extrinsic sampling bias. Molecular characterization of large clinical cohorts is typically performed on bulk samples; data analysis and interpretation can be biased by tumour purity variability. Transcription-based strategies to estimate tumour purity have been proposed, but no breast cancer specific method is available yet. We interrogated over 6000 expression profiles from 10 breast cancer datasets to develop and validate a 9-gene Breast Cancer Purity Score (BCPS). BCPS outperformed existing methods for estimating tumour content. Adjusting transcriptomic profiles using the BCPS reduces sampling bias and aids data interpretation. BCPS-estimated tumour purity improved prognostication in luminal breast cancer, correlated with pathologic complete response in on-treatment biopsies from triple-negative breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment and effectively stratified the risk of relapse in HER2+ residual disease post-neoadjuvant treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a novel tree approach to pricing derivatives linked to new Risk-Free Rate benchmarks. The methodology is versatile and can be applied to both backward–and forward-looking caplets. It draws upon the analogy with the pricing of Asian options, allowing for effective pricing in the context of these new benchmark rates. This article demonstrates the efficacy of this approach by applying it to model the overnight rate using numerical examples. The focus is on established interest rate tree models, which are widely utilized in the financial industry for valuing bonds with options linked to legacy benchmarks like LIBOR. The numerical examples presented in this article validate the reliability and accuracy of the proposed tree-based approach, showcasing its superiority over traditional Monte Carlo simulation methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In patients with cancer, tumor- and treatment-induced immunosuppression are responsible for a four-fold increase in morbidity and mortality caused by influenza and invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections compared to the general population. The main oncology societies strongly recommend vaccination in patients with cancer to prevent these infections. However, vaccine hesitancy is a main concern in this population. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of in-hospital vaccination for patients under anticancer treatment and their family members (FMs) against influenza and pneumococcal infections during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to increase vaccine coverage. This was a single-center, prospective, observational study conducted at the Department of Oncology of Luigi Sacco University Hospital (Milan, Italy) between October 2020 and April 2021. The main primary outcome was the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) and pneumococcal infections. The main secondary outcome was safety. A total of 341 subjects were enrolled, including 194 patients with cancer and 147 FMs. The incidence of ILI was higher among patients than among FMs (9% vs. 2.7%, OR 3.92, p = 0.02). Moreover, two subjects were diagnosed with pneumococcal pneumonia. The most frequent vaccine-related AEs were pain in the injection site (31%) and fatigue (8.7%). In conclusion, this hospital-based vaccination strategy was feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, representing a potential model to maximize vaccine coverage during a public health emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Solid cancer patients are at higher risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and severe complications. Moreover, vaccine‐induced antibody response is impaired in patients on anticancer treatment. In this retrospective, observational, hypothesis‐generating, cohort study, we assessed the antibody response to the third dose of mRNA vaccine in a convenience sample of patients on anticancer treatment, comparing it to that of the primary two‐dose cycle. Among 99 patients included, 62.6% were ≥60 years old, 32.3% males, 67.7% with advanced disease. Exactly 40.4% were receiving biological therapy, 16.2% chemotherapy only and 7.1% both treatments. After the third dose, seroconversion rate seems to increase significantly, especially in non‐responders to two doses. Heterologous vaccine‐type regimen (two‐dose mRNA‐1273 and subsequent tozinameran or vice versa) results in higher antibody levels. This explorative study suggests that repeated doses of mRNA‐vaccines could be associated with a better antibody response in this population. Furthermore, heterologous vaccine‐type three‐dose vaccination seems more effective in this population. Since this is a hypothesis‐generating study, adequately statistically powered studies should validate these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies on the immunogenicity of SARS‐CoV‐2 mRNA vaccines showed a reduced seroconversion in cancer patients. The aim of our study is to evaluate the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients with or without a previous exposure to the virus. This is a single‐institution, prospective, nonrandomized study. Patients in active treatment and a control cohort of healthy people received two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech/Pfizer, The United States) or mRNA‐1273 (Spikevax, Moderna). Vaccine was administered before starting anticancer therapy or on the first day of the treatment cycle. SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody levels against S1, RBD (to evaluate vaccine response) and N proteins (to evaluate previous infection) were measured in plasma before the first dose and 30 days after the second one. From January to June 2021, 195 consecutive cancer patients and 20 healthy controls were enrolled. Thirty‐one cancer patients had a previous exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2. Cancer patients previously exposed to the virus had significantly higher median levels of anti‐S1 and anti‐RBD IgG, compared to healthy controls (P =.0349) and to cancer patients without a previous infection (P <.001). Vaccine type (anti‐S1: P <.0001; anti‐RBD: P =.0045), comorbidities (anti‐S1: P =.0274; anti‐RBD: P =.0048) and the use of G‐CSF (anti‐S1: P =.0151) negatively affected the antibody response. Conversely, previous exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 significantly enhanced the response to vaccination (anti‐S1: P <.0001; anti‐RBD: P =.0026). Vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients with a previous exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 seems comparable to that of healthy subjects. On the other hand, clinical variables of immune frailty negatively affect humoral immune response to vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]