Explore the vast range of titles available.

Early palliative/supportive care (ePSC) is a medical intervention focused on patient’s needs, that integrates standard oncological treatment, shortly after a diagnosis of advanced/metastatic cancer. ePSC improves the appropriate management of cancer pain. Understanding the semantic and emotional impact of the words used by patients to describe their pain may further improve its assessment in the ePSC setting. Psycholinguistics assumes that the semantic and affective properties of words affect the ease by which they are processed and comprehended. Therefore, in this cross-sectional survey study we collected normative data about the semantic and affective properties of words associated to physical and social pain, in order to investigate how patients with cancer pain on ePSC process them compared to healthy, pain-free individuals. One hundred ninety patients and 124 matched controls rated the Familiarity, Valence, Arousal, Pain-relatedness, Intensity, and Unpleasantness of 94 words expressing physical and social pain. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed on ratings in order to unveil patients’ semantic and affective representation of pain and compare it with those from controls. Possible effects of variables associated to the illness experience were also tested. Both groups perceived the words conveying social pain as more negative and pain-related than those expressing physical pain, confirming previous evidence of social pain described as worse than physical pain. Patients rated pain words as less negative, less pain-related, and conveying a lower intense and unpleasant pain than controls, suggesting either an adaptation to the pain experience or the role played by ePSC in improving patients’ ability to cope with it. This exploratory study suggests that a chronic pain experience as the one experienced by cancer patients on ePSC affects the semantic and affective representation of pain words.

Background: Although the relationship between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PC) and the biological mechanisms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unequivocally unclear, it is possible that exposure to the virus may influence PC evolution by altering TMPRSS2 expression. This study aims to evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes of patients with metastatic PC who were undergoing medical therapy at the time of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and who resumed/continued anticancer treatment after recovery. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of 151 metastatic PC patients who developed SARS-CoV-2 infection while receiving one active systemic anticancer therapy (125 metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients and 26 metastatic hormone-sensitive PC (mHSPC) patients). We evaluated variables that influence the ability to maintain or resume the ongoing therapy. For the maintained/resumed therapies, we calculated the post-infection overall survival (piOS) and the overall survival (OS). Results: Of the patients, 12.6% died due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, 10.6% recovered from the infection but failed to maintain/resume the ongoing anticancer treatment, and the remaining 76.8% maintained/resumed the treatment after recovery. Hospitalization, duration of infection, and the type of ongoing anticancer agent influenced these treatment changes. In the cohort of mCRPC patients, the median piOS was 32 months, and the median OS was 67.8 months. The median piOS was not achieved in the cohort of mHSPC patients, while the median OS was 122 months. The outcomes of single anticancer agents were in line with those of pivotal trials. Conclusions: Although observed in a highly selected population of PC patients who survived SARS-CoV-2 infection and were able to resume/maintain anticancer therapy, the survival outcomes of this study appear to be in line with those reported in pivotal studies, and SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to have adversely affected long-term oncological outcomes.

Background: The treatment of heavily pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents an unmet medical need and is still challenging. Objectives: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of the lenvatinib plus everolimus combination and the secondary objective was the toxicity profile of this combination. Design: We conducted a longitudinal retrospective study examining mRCC patients pre-treated with one or more lines of therapy among different cancer centers in Italy. Methods: The study included patients who received the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus as either a second-line treatment or beyond. We assessed progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and toxicity profile. In addition, we explored the potential relationship between treatment effectiveness and clinical and laboratory parameters. Results: In all, 33 patients were assessed, the median age was 60 years, 57% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1–2 and. 63% received ⩾ 3 prior lines of therapy. 62% were ‘intermediate risk’ according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium and 30% were ‘poor risk’. The RR was 42% (no complete response), 18% stable disease. Median OS was 11.2 months (95% CI 6.8–19.9), median PFS was 6.7 months (95% CI 0.6–30.8), and median TTF was 6.7 months (95% CI 4.8–16.6). A shorter OS was significantly associated with lymph node metastases (p = 0.043, 95% CI), neutrophils/ lymphocytes ratio (NLR) ⩾ 3 (p = 0.007), hemoglobin/red cell distribution width ratio cutoff value <0.7 was significant (p = 0.03) while a shorter PFS was associated with lung (p = 0.048) and brain metastases (p = 0.023). The most frequent G1 toxicity was diarrhea (24%), G2 was fatigue (30%), and hypertension and skin toxicity (6%) for G3. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a clinically relevant effectiveness of lenvatinib plus everolimus combination with an acceptable toxicity profile for heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

Polymorphisms contribute to inter-individual differences and show a promising predictive role for chemotherapy-related toxicity in colon cancer (CC). TOSCA is a multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority, phase III study conducted in high-risk stage II/stage III CC patients treated with 6 vs 3 months of FOLFOX-4 or XELOX adjuvant chemotherapy. During this post-hoc analysis, 218 women and 294 men were genotyped for 17 polymorphisms: TYMS (rs34743033, rs2853542, rs11280056), MTHFR (rs1801133, rs1801131), ERCC1 (rs11615), XRCC1 (rs25487), XRCC3 (rs861539), XPD (rs1799793, rs13181), GSTP1 (rs1695), GSTT1/GSTM1 (deletion +/−), ABCC1 (rs2074087), and ABCC2 (rs3740066, rs1885301, rs4148386). The aim was to assess the interaction between these polymorphisms and sex, on safety in terms of time to grade ≥3 haematological (TTH), grade ≥3 gastrointestinal (TTG) and grade ≥2 neurological (TTN) toxicity. Interactions were detected on TTH for rs1801133 and rs1799793, on TTG for rs13181 and on TTN for rs11615. Rs1799793 GA genotype (p = 0.006) and A allele (p = 0.009) shortened TTH in men. In women, the rs11615 CC genotype worsened TTN (co-dominant model p = 0.008, recessive model p = 0.003) and rs13181 G allele improved the TTG (p = 0.039). Differences between the two sexes in genotype distribution of rs1885301 (p = 0.020) and rs4148386 (p = 0.005) were found. We highlight that polymorphisms could be sex-specific biomarkers. These results, however, need to be confirmed in additional series.

Background: Considering the growing genitourinary (GU) cancer population undergoing systemic treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we planned a clinical audit in 24 Italian institutions treating GU malignancies. Objective: The primary objective was investigating the clinical impact of COVID-19 in GU cancer patients undergoing ICI-based therapy during the first outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in Italy. Design, setting, and participants: The included centers were 24 Oncology Departments. Two online forms were completed by the responsible Oncology Consultants, respectively, for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients receiving at least one administration of ICIs between 31 January 2020 and 30 June 2020. Results and limitation: In total, 287 mRCC patients and 130 mUC patients were included. The COVID-19 incidence was, respectively, 3.5%, with mortality 1%, in mRCC patients and 7.7%, with mortality 3.1%, in mUC patients. In both groups, 40% of patients developing COVID-19 permanently discontinued anticancer treatment. The pre-test SARS-CoV-2 probability in the subgroup of patients who underwent nasal/pharyngeal swab ranged from 14% in mRCC to 26% in mUC. The main limitation of the work was its nature of audit: data were not recorded at the single-patient level. Conclusion: GU cancer patients undergoing active treatment with ICIs have meaningful risk factors for developing severe events from COVID-19 and permanent discontinuation of therapy after the infection. Treatment delays due to organizational issues during the pandemic were unlikely to affect the treatment outcome in this population.

The role of temozolomide concurrent with and adjuvant to radiotherapy (RT/TMZ) in elderly patients with glioblastoma (GBM) remains unclear. We evaluated the outcome of patients >70 years in the context of the Project of Emilia-Romagna Region in Neuro-Oncology (PERNO), the first Italian prospective observational population-based study in neuro-oncology. For this analysis the criteria for selecting patients enrolled in the PERNO study were: age >70 years; PS 0–3; histologically confirmed GBM; postoperative radiotherapy (RT) after surgery with or without concomitant temozolomide (TMZ) or postsurgical TMZ alone. Between January 2009 and December 2010, 76 GBM elderly patients were identified in the prospective PERNO study. Twenty-three patients did not receive any treatment after surgery, and 53 patients received postsurgical treatments (25 patients received RT alone and 28 patients RT/TMZ). Median survival was 11.1 months (95 % CI 8.8–13.5), adding temozolomide concomitant and adjuvant to radiotherapy it was 11.6 months (95 % CI 8.6–14.6), and 9.3 months (95 % CI 8.1–10.6) in patients treated with RT alone (P = 0.164). However, patients with MGMT methylated treated with RT/TMZ obtained a better survival (17.2 months, 95 % CI 11.5–22.9) (P = 0.042). No difference in terms of survival were observed if patients with MGMT unmethylated tumor received RT alone, or RT/TMZ or, in MGMT methylated tumor, if patients received radiotherapy alone. In elderly patients RT/TMZ represent a widely used approach but it is effective with methylated MGMT tumors only.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently the standard of care for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) after the failure of previous platinum-based chemotherapy. The choice of further therapy after ICI progression is a new challenge, and scarce data support it. We aimed to examine the outcomes of mUC patients after progression to ICI, especially when receiving chemotherapy. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from clinical records of mUC patients whose disease progressed to anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy at 14 Italian centers. Patients were grouped according to ICI therapy setting into SALVAGE (ie, ICI delivered ⩾ second-line therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy) and NAÏVE (ie, first-line therapy) groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared among subgroups. Cox regression assessed the effect of treatments after progression to ICI on OS. Objective response rate (ORR) was calculated as the sum of partial and complete radiologic responses. Results: The study population consisted of 201 mUC patients who progressed after ICI: 59 in the NAÏVE cohort and 142 in the SALVAGE cohort. Overall, 52 patients received chemotherapy after ICI progression (25.9%), 20 (9.9%) received ICI beyond progression, 115 (57.2%) received best supportive care only, and 14 (7.0%) received investigational drugs. Objective response rate to chemotherapy in the post-ICI setting was 23.1% (28.0% in the NAÏVE group and 18.5% in the SALVAGE group). Median PFS and OS to chemotherapy after ICI-PD was 5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3-11) and 13 months (95% CI: 7-NA) for the NAÏVE group; 3 months (95% CI: 2-NA) and 9 months (95% CI: 6-NA) for the SALVAGE group, respectively. Overall survival from ICI initiation was 17 months for patients receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.09, p < 0.001), versus 8 months for patients receiving ICI beyond progression (HR = 0.13, p < 0.001), and 2 months for patients who did not receive further active treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Chemotherapy administered after ICI progression for mUC patients is advisable irrespective of the treatment line.

The early referral to palliative care (PC) represents a successful value-based model with proven benefits regarding the quality of life and clinical outcomes for advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. Yet, its provision remains typically confined to the last weeks of life as per the historical, late PC model. The stigma according to which PC represents end-of-life care has been identified as the root of the problem. To explore the presence and effects of the stigma in a clinical context, we surveyed 78 patients and 110 caregivers (mean age: 71.7 and 60.7, respectively) on early PC to study what their perception of PC was before their direct experience. The responses were analyzed through a qualitative descriptive approach. The participants explicitly mentioned a lack of knowledge about PC (53% of the sample), which they identified also among physicians and the population (13%); an identification of PC with the late PC model (53%); and a detrimental reaction to the proposal of an early PC referral (83%). However, the participants explicitly mentioned that a direct experience of early PC allowed for an acquired awareness of early PC meaning and benefits (52%), as well as a comprehension of its differences with late PC (34%); the regret for the delayed referral (8%); the perception of the word “palliative” as a barrier (21%); and the belief that early PC should be part of the cancer routine practice (25%). A comprehensive multi-level intervention is necessary for a widespread understanding of the essence of anticipated PC.

Abstract Background Oncologists’ fear of taking away hope from patients when proposing early palliative care (EPC) is a barrier to the implementation of this model. This study explores hope perceptions among bereaved caregivers of onco-hematologic patients who received EPC. Materials and Methods Open-ended questionnaires were administered to 36 primary caregivers of patients who received EPC (26 solid and 10 hematologic cancer patients; mean age: 51.4 years, range age: 20-74), at 2 cancer centers, 2 months to 3 years after a patient death. Definitions of hope in the caregivers’ narratives were analyzed through a directed approach to content analysis. Results were complemented with automated lexicographic analysis. Results Caregivers perceived hope mainly as resilience and as expectations based on what they were told about the patients’ clinical conditions. Their hope was bolstered by trusting relationships with the healthcare teams. EPC interventions were recalled as the major support for hope, both during the illness and after the death of the patient. The automated quantitative lexical analysis provided deeper insights into the links between hope, truth, and trust. Conclusions Our findings suggest that telling the truth about an incurable onco-hematologic disease and beginning EPC might be the combination of factors triggering hope in the setting of incurable cancer. Oncologists’ fear of taking away hope from patients when proposing early palliative care is a barrier to the implementation of this model. This article explores hope perceptions among bereaved caregivers of patients with cancer who had received early palliative care.