Explore the vast range of titles available.

Reporting of toxic adverse effects of anticancer treatments by clinicians generally results in the underreporting of these toxicities. Patient-reported outcomes, which fully reflect the experiences of patients receiving treatment, offer an alternative to reporting of toxicities by clinicians. In this Perspective, the authors describe the barriers and challenges to routine integration of patient-reported outcomes into clinical trials, and describe the PRO–CTCAE, which is designed to help circumvent some of these challenges. Symptomatic toxicities associated with anticancer treatments, such as nausea and vomiting, are frequently underreported by clinicians, even when data are prospectively collected within clinical trials. Such underreporting can result in an underestimation of the absolute rate of toxicity, which is highly relevant information for patients and their physicians in clinical practice, and for regulatory authorities. Systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been demonstrated to be a valid, reliable, feasible and precise approach to tabulating symptomatic toxicities and enables symptoms that are missed by clinicians to be detected. In this Perspectives, the barriers and challenges that should be addressed when considering broad integration of PRO toxicity monitoring in oncology clinical trials are discussed, including challenges related to data collection logistics, analytical approaches, and resource utilization. Instruments conceived to enable description of treatment-related adverse effects, from the patient perspective, bring the potential to improve risk-versus-benefit analyses in clinical research, and to provide patients with accurate information, on the basis of previous experiences of their peers.

The European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria and the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) are currently adopted to evaluate radiological response in patients affected by HCC and treated with loco-regional procedures. Several studies explored the validity of these measurements in predicting survival but definitive data are still lacking. To conduct a systematic review of studies exploring mRECIST and EASL criteria usefulness in predictive radiological response in HCC undergoing loco-regional therapies and their validity in predicting survival. A comprehensive search of the literature was performed in electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, COCHRANE LIBRARY, ASCO conferences and EASL conferences up to June 10, 2014. Our overall search strategy included terms for HCC, mRECIST, and EASL. Loco-regional procedures included transarterial embolization (TAE), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and cryoablation. Inter-method agreement between EASL and mRECIST was assessed using the k coefficient. For each criteria, overall survival was described in responders vs. non-responders patients, considering all target lesions response. Among 18 initially found publications, 7 reports including 1357 patients were considered eligible. All studies were published as full-text articles. Proportion of responders according to mRECIST and EASL criteria was 62.4% and 61.3%, respectively. In the pooled population, 1286 agreements were observed between the two methods (kappa statistics 0.928, 95% confidence interval 0.912-0.944). HR for overall survival (responders versus non responders) according to mRECIST and EASL was 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.26-0.61, p<0.0001) and 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.24-0.61, p<0.0001), respectively. In this literature-based meta-analysis, mRECIST and EASL criteria showed very good concordance in HCC patients undergoing loco-regional treatments. Objective response according to both criteria confirms a strong prognostic value in terms of overall survival. This prognostic value appears to be very similar between the two criteria.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the optimum number of treatment cycles remains controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data to compare the efficacy of six versus fewer planned cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. All randomised trials comparing six versus fewer planned cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, proportion of patients with an objective response, and toxicity. Statistical analyses were by intention-to-treat, stratified by trial. Overall survival and progression-free survival were compared by log-rank test. The proportion of patients with an objective response was compared with a Mantel-Haenszel test. Prespecified analyses explored effect variations by trial and patient characteristics. Five eligible trials were identified; individual patient data could be collected from four of these trials, which included 1139 patients—568 of whom were assigned to six cycles, and 571 to three cycles (two trials) or four cycles (two trials). Patients received cisplatin (two trials) or carboplatin (two trials). No evidence indicated a benefit of six cycles of chemotherapy on overall survival (median 9·54 months [95% CI 8·98–10·69] in patients assigned to six cycles vs 8·68 months [8·03–9·54] in those assigned to fewer cycles; hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·83–1·07], p=0·33) with slight heterogeneity between trials (p=0·076; I2=56%). We recorded no evidence of a treatment interaction with histology, sex, performance status, or age. Median progression-free survival was 6·09 months (95% CI 5·82–6·87) in patients assigned to six cycles and 5·33 months (4·90–5·62) in those assigned to fewer cycles (HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68–0·90; p=0·0007), and 173 (41·3%) of 419 patients assigned to six cycles and 152 (36·5%) of 416 patients assigned to three or four cycles had an objective response (p=0·16), without heterogeneity between the four trials. Anaemia at grade 3 or higher was slightly more frequent with a longer duration of treatment: 12 (2·9%) of 416 patients assigned to three-to-four cycles and 32 (7·8%) of 411 patients assigned to six cycles had severe anaemia. Six cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not improve overall survival compared with three or four courses in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Our findings suggest that fewer than six planned cycles of chemotherapy is a valid treatment option for these patients. None.

Angiogenesis is a complex biological process that plays a relevant role in sustaining the microenvironment, growth, and metastatic potential of several tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Bevacizumab was the first angiogenesis inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC in combination with chemotherapy; however, it was limited to patients with non-squamous histology and first-line setting. Approval was based on the results of two phase III trials (ECOG4599 and AVAIL) that demonstrated an improvement of about two months in progression-free survival (PFS) in both trials, and in the ECOG4599 trial, an improvement in overall survival (OS) also. Afterwards, other antiangiogenic agents, including sunitinib, sorafenib, and vandetanib have been unsuccessfully tested in first and successive lines. Recently, two new antiangiogenic agents (ramucirumab and nintedanib) produced a significant survival benefit in second-line setting. In the REVEL study, ramucirumab plus docetaxel prolonged the median OS of patients with any histology NSCLC when compared with docetaxel alone (10.4 versus 9.1 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.857, p = 0.0235). In the LUME-Lung 1 study, nintedanib plus docetaxel prolonged the median PFS of patients with any tumor histology (p = 0.0019), and improved OS (12.6 versus 10.3 months) in patients with adenocarcinoma. As a result, it became a new option for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and adenocarcinoma histology. Identifying predictive biomarkers to optimize the benefit of antiangiogenic drugs remains an ongoing challenge.

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. 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/m2 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. 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 two [6%]), leucopenia (four [11%] vs one [3%]), hypertension (three [8%] vs none [0%]), raised aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase (three [8%] vs none), and anaemia (two [5%] vs five [14%]). One patient in the pazopanib group had ileal perforation. Our findings suggest that a phase 3 study of the combination of weekly paclitaxel plus pazopanib for patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory advanced ovarian cancer is warranted. National Cancer Institute of Napoli and GlaxoSmithKline.

Introduction: This document illustrates the results of a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder Working Group(WG), focused on planning and allocation of resources for pharmaceuticals from the Regions to the Health Authorities. The WG was carried out during the Fourth Edition of the Regional Pharmaceutical Policies Forum.Methods: The WG designed a model of resources planning and allocation, that can be adapted to the regionalcontexts. The discussion moved from pharmaceutical expenditure forecasting methods, resource allocation criteriaand processes from the Central Government to the Regions and a survey on the current methods of allocationof resources for pharmaceuticals from the Regions to the Health Authorities.Results: The proposal, that can be adapted to each single Region, provides: (i) that the allocation of resources isconsistent with the regional pharmaceutical policies and objectives given to the Health Authorities General Managers; (ii) for a transparent and simplified approach, avoiding expenditure sub-targets; (iii) for a timeline witha first provisional allocation in January, the final allocation by March and possible adjustments until August; (iv)for a level of sophistication that can be adapted to the regional capacity and the willingness to invest in planningby politicians; (v) for a monitoring system possibly on a monthly basis and based upon reports supporting theadoption of remedial actions.Conclusions: Finally, the WG hoped for overcoming silos budgets and advocated for a broader resources planningand allocation, that should consider the whole journey of the patient, from treatment eligibility to the managementof any organizational impact of therapies on the follow-up of the patient.

Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) are a significant public health concern with complex etiologies involving genetic, environmental, and psychological factors. Here, we present BioSUD, a biobank that, by integrating genomic data with comprehensive phenotypic assessments, including sociodemographic, psychosocial, and addiction-related variables, was designed to investigate the etiology of SUDs within the Southern Italian population. We assessed a cohort of 1,806 participants (1,508 controls and 298 individuals with SUD diagnosis). Genomic analyses of the newly generated genotypes showed a predominantly Southern Italian ancestry for the BioSUD cohort. Admixture analysis reveals a complex history of genetic admixture in Southern Italian populations, exhibiting Southern European, African, and other ancestries. This results in significant genetic variation, potentially limiting the applicability of translational studies primarily based on Northern European ancestries. From a social and psychological perspective, individuals with SUDs exhibited lower socioeconomic status, increased exposure to adverse experiences, and compromised familial and peer relationships relative to controls. These results show that the BioSUD cohort is valuable for studying SUD-associated complex behavioral traits.

Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with preclinical and clinical evidence of activity in non-small-cell lung cancer. We designed BR.26 to assess whether dacomitinib improved overall survival in heavily pretreated patients with this disease. In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer from 75 centres in 12 countries. Eligible patients had received up to three previous lines of chemotherapy and either gefitinib or erlotinib, and had assessable disease (RECIST 1.1) and tumour tissue samples for translational studies. Patients were stratified according to centre, performance status, tobacco use, best response to previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, weight loss within the previous 3 months, and ethnicity, and were then randomly allocated 2:1 to oral dacomitinib 45 mg once-daily or matched placebo centrally via a web-based system. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; secondary outcomes included overall survival in predefined molecular subgroups, progression-free survival, the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, safety, and quality of life. This study is completed, although follow-up is ongoing for patients on treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000025. Between Dec 23, 2009, and June 11, 2013, we randomly assigned 480 patients to dacomitinib and 240 patients to placebo. At the final analysis (January, 2014), median follow-up was 23·4 months (IQR 15·6–29·6) for patients in the dacomitinib group and 24·4 months (11·5–38·9) for those in the placebo group. Dacomitinib did not improve overall survival compared with placebo (median 6·83 months [95% CI 6·08–7·49] for dacomitinib vs 6·31 months [5·32–7·52] for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00 [95% CI 0·83–1·21]; p=0·506). However, patients in the dacomitinib group had longer progression-free survival than those in the placebo group (median 2·66 months [1·91–3·32] vs 1·38 months [0·99–1·74], respectively; HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55–0·79]; p<0·0001), and a significantly greater proportion of patients in the dacomitinb group achieved an objective response than in the placebo group (34 [7%] of 480 patients vs three [1%] of 240 patients, respectively; p=0·001). Compared with placebo, the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival seemed similar in patients with EGFR-mutation-positive tumours (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·67–1·44) and EGFR wild-type tumours (0·93, 0·71–1·21; pinteraction=0·69). However, we noted qualitative differences in the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival for patients with KRAS-mutation-positive tumours (2·10, 1·05–4·22) and patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (0·79, 0·61–1·03; pinteraction=0·08). Compared with placebo, patients allocated dacomitinib had significantly longer time to deterioration of cough (p<0·0001), dyspnoea (p=0·049), and pain (p=0·041). 185 (39%) of 477 patients who received dacomitinib and 86 (36%) of 239 patients who received placebo had serious adverse events. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were diarrhoea (59 [12%] patients on dacomitinib vs no controls), acneiform rash (48 [10%] vs one [<1%]), oral mucositis (16 [3%] vs none), and fatigue (13 [3%] vs four [2%]). Dacomitinib did not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and an EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and Pfizer.

Background Characteristics of patients significantly differ between registrational clinical trials (CTs) and Italian real-world practice, with older median age, higher elderly (≥ 65) rate and worse performance status (PS) in the latter, without imbalance in female rate. We compared the same characteristics between registrational phase 2/3 and phase 1 CTs. Methods Data on age, sex and PS were extracted from European Public Assessment Reports of European Medicines Agency. Weighted means and standard deviations were calculated in both groups and differences were described overall, by cancer type and drug class. Results We collected 103 phase 2/3 and 111 phase 1 CTs, supporting 97 therapeutic indications. Age and sex were compared in 59 indications. Mean median age (SD) was 60.7 (5.1) years in phase 2/3 and 59.7 (5.6) years in phase 1 (p = 0.051). Age difference was greater for skin and breast cancer; no heterogeneity emerged among drug classes. Mean female rate was not statistically significantly lower in phase 2/3 than phase 1 CTs overall, (mean difference − 4.9%, p = 0.999); difference was greater for skin and upper-gastrointestinal cancers and for cytotoxic agents. Mean PS > 1 rate, compared in 47 indications, was similar in phase 2/3 [2.3% (4.7)] and phase 1 [1.8% (3.5)] (p = 0.374); difference was greater for colorectal cancer and cytotoxic agents. Conclusions We found no statistically significant difference in age, sex and PS between patients in phase 2/3 and corresponding phase 1 CTs for anticancer treatments. Therefore, patient selection in phase 1 trials appears crucial, considering its potential impact in later development phases.

ObjectivesTo measure and explain financial toxicity (FT) of cancer in Italy, where a public healthcare system exists and patients with cancer are not expected (or only marginally) to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare.SettingTen clinical oncological centres, distributed across Italian macroregions (North, Centre, South and Islands), including hospitals, university hospitals and national research institutes.ParticipantsFrom 8 October 2019 to 11 December 2019, 184 patients, aged 18 or more, who were receiving or had received within the previous 3 months active anticancer treatment were enrolled, 108 (59%) females and 76 (41%) males.InterventionA 30-item prefinal questionnaire, previously developed within the qualitative tasks of the project, was administered, either electronically (n=115) or by paper sheet (n=69).Primary and secondary outcome measuresAccording to the protocol and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research methodology, the final questionnaire was developed by mean of explanatory factor analysis and tested for reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α test and item-total correlation) and stability of measurements over time (test–retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted Cohen’s kappa coefficient).ResultsAfter exploratory factor analysis, a score measuring FT (FT score) was identified, made by seven items dealing with outcomes of FT. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the FT score was 0.87 and the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. Further, nine single items representing possible determinants of FT were also retained in the final instrument. Test–retest analysis revealed a good internal validity of the FT score and of the 16 items retained in the final questionnaire.ConclusionsThe Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) instrument consists of 16 items and is the first reported instrument to assess FT of cancer developed in a country with a fully public healthcare system.Trial registration numberNCT03473379.