U-CHANGE Project: a multidimensional consensus on how clinicians, patients and caregivers may approach together the new urothelial cancer scenario.

Introduction: Advanced urothelial carcinoma remains aggressive and very hard to cure, while new treatments will pose a challenge for clinicians and healthcare funding policymakers alike. The U-CHANGE Project aimed to redesign the current model of care for advanced urothelial carcinoma patients to identify limitations ("as is" scenario) and recommend future actions ("to be" scenario). Methods: Twenty-three subject-matter experts, divided into three groups, analyzed the two scenarios as part of a multidimensional consensus process, developing statements for specific domains of the disease, and a simplified Delphi methodology was used to establish consensus among the experts. Results: Recommended actions included increasing awareness of the disease, increased training of healthcare professionals, improvement of screening strategies and care pathways, increased support for patients and caregivers and relevant recommendations from molecular tumor boards when comprehensive genomic profiling has to be provided for appropriate patient selection to ad hoc targeted therapies. Discussion: While the innovative new targeted agents have the potential to significantly alter the clinical approach to this highly aggressive disease, the U-CHANGE Project experience shows that the use of these new agents will require a radical shift in the entire model of care, implementing sustainable changes which anticipate the benefits of future treatments, capable of targeting the right patient with the right agent at different stages of the disease.

Adjuvant mitotane versus surveillance in low-grade, localised adrenocortical carcinoma (ADIUVO): an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial and observational study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment with mitotane is commonly used after resection of adrenocortical carcinoma; however, treatment remains controversial, particularly if risk of recurrence is not high. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant mitotane compared with surveillance alone following complete tumour resection in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma considered to be at low to intermediate risk of recurrence. METHODS: ADIUVO was a multicentre, open-label, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 23 centres across seven countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with adrenocortical carcinoma and low to intermediate risk of recurrence (R0, stage I-III, and Ki67 ≤10%) were randomly assigned to adjuvant oral mitotane two or three times daily (the dose was adjusted by the local investigator with the target of reaching and maintaining plasma mitotane concentrations of 14-20 mg/L) for 2 years or surveillance alone. All consecutive patients at 14 study centres fulfilling the eligibility criteria of the ADIUVO trial who refused randomisation and agreed on data collection via the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors adrenocortical carcinoma registry were included prospectively in the ADIUVO Observational study. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to the first radiological evidence of recurrence or death from any cause (whichever occurred first), assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Overall survival, defined as time from the date of randomisation to the date of death from any cause, was a secondary endpoint analysed by intention to treat in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients who adhered to the assigned regimen, which was defined by taking at least one tablet of mitotane in the mitotane group and no mitotane at all in the surveillance group. The ADIUVO trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00777244, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2008, and Dec 27, 2018, 45 patients were randomly assigned to mitotane and 46 to surveillance alone. Because the study was discontinued prematurely, 5-year recurrence-free and overall survival are reported instead of recurrence-free and overall survival as defined in the protocol. 5-year recurrence-free survival was 79% (95% CI 67-94) in the mitotane group and 75% (63-90) in the surveillance group (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·30-1·85]). Two people in the mitotane group and five people in the surveillance group died, and 5-year overall survival was not significantly different (95% [95% CI 89-100] in the mitotane group and 86% [74-100] in the surveillance group). All 42 patients who received mitotane had adverse events, and eight (19%) discontinued treatment. There were no grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant mitotane might not be indicated in patients with low-grade, localised adrenocortical carcinoma considering the relatively good prognosis of these patients, and no significant improvement in recurrence-free survival and treatment-associated toxicity in the mitotane group. However, the study was discontinued prematurely due to slow recruitment and cannot rule out an efficacy of treatment. FUNDING: AIFA, ENSAT Cancer Health F2-2010-259735 programme, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Cancer Research UK, and the French Ministry of Health.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with one to two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: sub-analysis of the SINODAR-ONE multicentre randomized clinical trial and reopening of enrolment.

BACKGROUND: The initial results of the SINODAR-ONE randomized clinical trial reported that patients with T1-2 breast cancer and one to two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes treated with breast-conserving surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy only, and adjuvant therapy did not present worse 3-year survival, regional recurrence, or distant recurrence rates compared with those treated with axillary lymph node dissection. To extend the recommendation of axillary lymph node dissection omission even in patients treated with mastectomy, a sub-analysis of the SINODAR-ONE trial is presented here. METHODS: Patients with T1-2 breast cancer and no more than two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes undergoing mastectomy were analysed. After sentinel lymph node biopsy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either axillary lymph node dissection followed by adjuvant treatment (standard arm) or adjuvant treatment alone (experimental arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 218 patients were treated with mastectomy; 111 were randomly assigned to the axillary lymph node dissection group and 107 to the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only group. At a median follow-up of 33.0 months, there were three deaths (two deaths in the axillary lymph node dissection group and one death in the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only group). There were five recurrences in each treatment arm. No axillary lymph node recurrence was observed. The 5-year overall survival rates were 97.8 and 98.7 per cent in the axillary lymph node dissection treatment arm and the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only treatment arm, respectively (P = 0.597). The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 95.7 and 94.1 per cent in the axillary lymph node dissection treatment arm and the sentinel lymph node biopsy treatment arm, respectively (P = 0.821). CONCLUSION: In patients with T1-2 breast cancer and one to two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes treated with mastectomy, the overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates of patients treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy only were not inferior to those treated with axillary lymph node dissection. To strengthen the conclusion of the trial, the enrolment of patients treated with mastectomy was reopened as a single-arm experimental study. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05160324 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

The management of achondroplasia in Italy: results from a Delphi panel based on real-world experience.

Background: Achondroplasia is a rare genetic disorder caused by a mutation in the FGFR3 gene, leading to skeletal changes and other systemic complications that greatly impact the patient's quality of life. There currently are differences in achondroplasia patients' management among countries and centers within the same country. Method: A group of Italian experts discussed the best practice and the current unmet needs in the management of patients with achondroplasia though a two-round Delphi panel, between September and November 2022. The Delphi survey consisted of 32 questions covering organizational aspects, diagnosis and follow-up, and management of achondroplasia patient, and was shared among 54 experts from 25 different centers in Italy. The consensus was determined on the basis of the percentage of agreement or disagreement to each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Pediatricians (including specialists in pediatrics, medical genetics, and pediatric endocrinology) orthopedics and medical geneticists were the most represented specialists accounting for 64%, 9% and 9% of participants, respectively. The panel highlighted the need for standardized procedures to identify reference centers, the crucial role of multidisciplinary team, and effective communication among centers (Hub and Spoke model) as the essential organizational features; the importance of genetic counseling, presence of a psychologist, and clear communication during prenatal diagnosis as main points for diagnosis; early intervention by different specialists, personalized care, and promotion of a healthy lifestyle as major points for patient management. Conclusion: To ensure an adequate continuity of care over the whole lifespan of a patient with achondroplasia a shared model for patient management is suggested by Italian specialists.

[Covid-19 vaccines, Di Bella therapy, alternative medicine and the "experts": who to believe?] / I vaccini per il Covid, la terapia Di Bella, la medicina alternativa e gli "esperti": a chi credere?

The recent discussions on the efficacy and on the alleged harms caused by Covid-19 vaccines remind us of what happened 20 years ago with the Di Bella therapy, and always with alternative therapies, re-proposing a dilemma which, with the diffusion of communications though various media, is becoming increasingly topical: who is in the position to express opinions on technical topics in the health sector, worthy of being taken into consideration? The answer seems obvious: "the experts". But who decides who the experts are, and how do you recognize them? As paradoxical as it may seem, the only practicable system is to entrust the identification of experts to the experts themselves, the only ones able to recognize who can provide reliable answers on a specific problem. It is a system with huge flaws, but which in medicine has the advantage of forcing its interpreters to deal with the consequences of their choices, thus introducing a virtuous feedback mechanism with positive effects both on the selection of experts and on the decision-making mechanisms: it is therefore a system that seems to work in the medium-long term, but which in the face of an acute crisis is of little help to those who are not experts, but need the opinion of an expert.

Preservation of Axillary Lymph Nodes Compared with Complete Dissection in T1-2 Breast Cancer Patients Presenting One or Two Metastatic Sentinel Lymph Nodes: The SINODAR-ONE Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The SINODAR-ONE trial is a prospective noninferiority multicenter randomized study aimed at assessing the role of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients undergoing either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy for T1-2 breast cancer (BC) and presenting one or two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). The endpoints were to evaluate whether SLN biopsy (SLNB) only was associated with worsening of the prognosis compared with ALND in terms of overall survival (OS) and relapse. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either removal of ≥ 10 axillary level I/II non-SLNs followed by adjuvant therapy (standard arm) or no further axillary treatment (experimental arm). RESULTS: The trial started in April 2015 and ceased in April 2020, involving 889 patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 months. There were eight deaths (ALND, 4; SNLB only, 4), with 5-year cumulative mortality of 5.8% and 2.1% in the standard and experimental arm, respectively (p = 0.984). There were 26 recurrences (ALND 11; SNLB only, 15), with 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence of 6.9% and 3.3% in the standard and experimental arm, respectively (p = 0.444). Only one axillary lymph node recurrence was observed in each arm. The 5-year OS rates were 98.9% and 98.8%, in the ALND and SNLB-only arm, respectively (p = 0.936). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year survival and relapse rates of T1-2 BC patients with one or two macrometastatic SLNs treated with SLNB only, and adjuvant therapy, were not inferior to those of patients treated with ALND. These results do not support the use of routine ALND.

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulses in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk soft tissue sarcomas: A Sarculator-based risk stratification analysis of the ISG-STS 1001 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is not completely understood. This study investigated the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to prognostic stratification based on the Sarculator nomogram for STS. METHODS: This study analyzed data from ISG-STS 1001, a randomized study that tested 3 cycles of neoadjuvant anthracycline plus ifosfamide (AI) or histology-tailored (HT) chemotherapy in adult patients with STS. The 10-year predicted overall survival (pr-OS) was estimated with the Sarculator and was stratified into higher (10-year pr-OS < 60%) and lower risk subgroups (10-year pr-OS ≥ 60%). RESULTS: The median pr-OS was 0.63 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.51-0.72) for the entire study population, 0.62 (IQR, 0.51-0.70) for the AI arm, and 0.64 (IQR, 0.51-0.73) for the HT arm. Three- and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.93) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.86) in lower risk patients and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.51-0.72) in the higher risk patients (log-rank test, P = .004). In higher risk patients, the 3- and 5-year Sarculator-predicted and study-observed OS rates were 0.68 and 0.58, respectively, and 0.85 and 0.66, respectively, in the AI arm (P = .04); the corresponding figures in the HT arm were 0.69 and 0.60, respectively, and 0.69 and 0.55, respectively (P > .99). In lower risk patients, the 3- and 5-year Sarculator-predicted and study-observed OS rates were 0.85 and 0.80, respectively, and 0.89 and 0.82, respectively, in the AI arm (P = .507); the corresponding figures in the HT arm were 0.87 and 0.81, respectively, and 0.86 and 0.74, respectively (P = .105). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients treated with AI performed better than predicted, and this adds to the evidence for the efficacy of neoadjuvant AI in STS. LAY SUMMARY: People affected by soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and trunk wall are at some risk of developing metastasis after surgery. Preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy has been tested in clinical trials to reduce the chances of distant metastasis. However, study findings have not been conclusive. This study stratified the risk of metastasis for people affected by sarcomas who were included in a clinical trial testing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Exploiting the prognostic nomogram Sarculator, it found a benefit for chemotherapy when the predicted risk, based on patient and tumor characteristics, was high.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Radical Surgery versus Concurrent Chemo-Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate oncological outcomes in women affected by locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical surgery (NACT + RS) or concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT). METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of data related to women with LACC (FIGO stage IB2-IVA), who were treated by NACT + RS or CCRT between November 2006 and January 2018. The first endpoints were the evaluation of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS); univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for identifying the prognostic factors independently associated with these oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 106 women were included in the analysis; 55 of them (51.9%) underwent NACT + RS and 51 (48.1%) CCRT, respectively. Patients in the NACT + RS group had a significant better five-year DFS and five-year OS than those in the CCRT group (77.4% vs. 33.4%, p < .001 and 93.8% vs. 56.5%, p = .003). In the multivariate analyses, treatment choice (NACT + RS or CCRT) was the only independent prognostic factor for predicting both DFS (HR = 3.954; 95 CI = 1.898-8.236; p < 0.001) and OS (HR = 5.330; 95 CI = 1.563-18.178; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study demonstrated an improved survival outcome for patients undergoing NACT + RS compared with those undergoing CCRT. Our findings seem to support the use of NACT before RS as an effective alternative option to CCRT standard therapy.

Extended therapy with letrozole as adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal patients with early-stage breast cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of extending aromatase inhibitor therapy beyond 5 years in the context of previous aromatase inhibitors remains controversial. We aimed to compare extended therapy with letrozole for 5 years versus the standard duration of 2-3 years of letrozole in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who have already received 2-3 years of tamoxifen. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done at 69 hospitals in Italy. Women were eligible if they were postmenopausal at the time of study entry, had stage I-III histologically proven and operable invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, had received adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for at least 2 years but no longer than 3 years and 3 months, had no signs of disease recurrence, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2-3 years (control group) or 5 years (extended group) of letrozole (2·5 mg orally once a day). Randomisation, with stratification by centre, with permuted blocks of size 12, was done with a centralised, interactive, internet-based system that randomly generated the treatment allocation. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analysis was done for patients who received at least 1 month of study treatment. This trial was registered with EudraCT, 2005-001212-44, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01064635. FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2005, and Oct 24, 2010, 2056 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive letrozole for 2-3 years (n=1030; control group) or for 5 years (n=1026; extended group). After a median follow-up of 11·7 years (IQR 9·5-13·1), disease-free survival events occurred in 262 (25·4%) of 1030 patients in the control group and 212 (20·7%) of 1026 in the extended group. 12-year disease-free survival was 62% (95% CI 57-66) in the control group and 67% (62-71) in the extended group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·65-0·93; p=0·0064). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were arthralgia (22 [2·2%] of 983 patients in the control group vs 29 [3·0%] of 977 in the extended group) and myalgia (seven [0·7%] vs nine [0·9%]). There were three (0·3%) serious treatment-related adverse events in the control group and eight (0·8%) in the extended group. No deaths related to toxic effects were observed. INTERPRETATION: In postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who received 2-3 years of tamoxifen, extended treatment with 5 years of letrozole resulted in a significant improvement in disease-free survival compared with the standard 2-3 years of letrozole. Sequential endocrine therapy with tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by letrozole for 5 years should be considered as one of the optimal standard endocrine treatments for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. FUNDING: Novartis and the Italian Ministry of Health. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Identification of a Prognostic Signature Based on the Expression of Genes Related to the Insulin Pathway in Early Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin and the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) family play a key role in breast cancer (BC). OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated on a genomic scale the potential prognostic value of insulin signaling in early BC. METHODS: Candidate genes were selected from the published literature and gene expression profiling experiments. Three publicly available BC datasets, containing gene expression data on 502 cases, were used to test the prognostic ability of the score. The gene signature was developed on GSE1456, containing microarray data from 159 patients, split into a training set (102 breast tumors) and a validation set (n = 57). GSE3494 and GSE2990 (350 patients) were used for external validation. Univariate Mann-Whitney test was used to identify genes differentially expressed between relapsed and nonrelapsed patients. Expression of genes significantly correlated with relapse was combined in a linear score. Patients were classified as low or high risk with respect to the median value. RESULTS: On the training set, 15 genes turned out to be differentially expressed: 8-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 51 and 91% in the high- and low-risk group (p < 0.001), respectively. In the validation set, DFS was 97 and 54% (p = 0.009), respectively. External validation: 8-year DFS was 72 and 61%, respectively, in GSE3494 (p = 0.03) and 74 and 55% in GSE2990 (p = 0.03). By multivariate analyses, the insulin signature was significantly associated with DFS, independently of age, hormone receptor status, nodal status, and grade. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the insulin pathway is involved in BC prognosis at a genomic level and provide a window of selectivity for preventive and treatment strategies targeting the insulin/IGF pathway in BC patients.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP).

INTRODUCTION: The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units. METHODS: Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Correlation between outcome and extent of residual disease in the sentinel node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in clinically fine-needle proven node-positive breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Whether the extent of residual disease in the sentinel lymph node (SLN) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) influences the prognosis in clinically node-positive breast cancer (BC) patients remains to be ascertained. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-four consecutive cN+/BC-patients received NAC followed by SLN biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection. Cumulative incidence of overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival, BC-related recurrences and death from BC were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method both in the whole patient population and according to the SLN status. The log rank test was used for comparisons between groups. RESULTS: The SLN was identified in 123/134 (91.8%) patients and was positive in 98/123 (79.7%) patients. Sixty-five of them (66.3%) had other axillary nodes involved. SLN sensitivity and false-negative rate were 88.0% and 2.0%, Median follow-up was 10.2 years. Ten-year cumulative incidence of axillary, breast and distant recurrences, and death from BC were 6.5%, 11.9%, 33.4% and 31.3%, respectively. Ten-year OS and DFS were 67.3% and 55.9%. When stratified by SLN status, 10-year cumulative incidence of BC-related and loco-regional events, and death from BC were similar between disease-free SLN and micrometastatic SLN subgroups (28.9% vs 30.2%, p = 0.954; 21.6% vs 13.4%, p = 0.840; 12.9 vs 24.5%, p=0.494). Likewise, 10-year OS and DFS were comparable (80.0% vs 75.5%, p=0.975 and 68.0% vs 69.8, p=0.836). Both OS and DFS were lower in patients presenting a macrometastatic SLN (60.2% and 47.5%). CONCLUSION: Outcome of patients with micrometastatic SLN was similar to that of patients with disease-free SLN, which was more favorable as compared to that of patients with macrometastatic SLN.

Prevalence of Prostate Cancer at Different Clinical Stages in Italy: Estimated Burden of Disease Based on a Modelling Study.

Understanding the distribution of prostate cancer (PC) at various clinical stages of disease is of utmost importance to quantify the cancer care needs of patients and to adequately plan health services. The aim of this analysis is thus to provide a model-based estimation of the number of prevalent PC patients at different clinical stages in the Italian setting. A simulation model of patient transitions was constructed on a yearly basis using data obtained through a literature review on the incidence, prevalence, progression and mortality of PC, with specific focus on disease stage. A total of 462,570 prevalent PC patients were estimated at 1 January 2019. According to the model, 94.8% of them had non-metastatic PC and 5.2% had metastatic disease. Among the non-metastatic patients, most had T1/T2 PC (85.6%), followed by T3/T4 (10.9%) and T0/Tx PC (3.6%). About 20% of the T3/T4 patients had biochemically recurrent PC. Among the metastatic PC patients, 66.1% had castration-resistant PC and 33.9% had hormone-sensitive PC. This study provided original information on the distribution of PC according to different clinical stages that may be useful to define strategies, understand the PC disease pathway, estimate treatment-related needs and, possibly, plan targeted interventions for public health management of prostate cancer in Italy.

Anticancer innovative therapy congress: Highlights from the 10th anniversary edition.

During the Tenth Edition of the Annual Congress on "Anticancer Innovative Therapy" [Milan, 23/24 January 2020], experts in the fields of immuno-oncology, epigenetics, tumor cell signaling, and cancer metabolism shared their latest knowledge on the roles of i] epigenetics, and in particular, chromatin modifiers, ii] cancer metabolism, iii] cancer stem cells [CSCs], iv] tumor cell signaling, and iv] the immune system. The novel therapeutic approaches presented included epigenetic drugs, cell cycle inhibitors combined with ICB, antibiotics and other off-label drugs, small-molecules active against CSCs, liposome-delivered miRNAs, tumor-specific CAR-T cells, and T-cell-based immunotherapy. Moreover, important evidence on possible mechanisms of resistance to these innovative therapies were also discussed, in particular with respect to resistance to ICB. Overall, this conference provided scientists and clinicians with a broad overview of future challenges and hopes to improve cancer treatment reasonably in the medium-short term.

Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system.

OBJECTIVE: In 2017, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) introduced a standardised process to appraise innovativeness of medicines. Innovative medicines are provided speeder market access and dedicated funds. Innovativeness criteria are: unmet therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method). We investigated the role played by these three criteria on the final decision aimed to understand how the new Italian innovativeness appraisal framework was implemented. DESIGN: A desk research gathered AIFA's appraisal reports on innovativeness and data analyses were conducted. No patients were directly involved in this study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We scrutinised all 77 appraisal reports available on AIFA's website (2017-2020). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact of the three domains on final decision was investigated through a series of univariate analyses. RESULTS: Among 77 appraisal reports on innovativeness available, 49 (64%) and 28 (36%) were for oncology and non-oncology medicines, respectively. The appraisals were equally distributed among 'fully innovative' (36%), 'conditionally innovative' (30%) and 'not innovative' (34%). Added therapeutic value was the most important driver on innovativeness decision, followed by quality of the evidence. Drugs for rare diseases and with paediatric/mixed indications were appraised 'innovative' by a larger proportion, but no statistical significance was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, including the moderate number of appraisals, this paper provides an insight into the determinants of innovativeness appraisals for medicines in Italy and the accuracy of the appraisal process. This has important implications in terms of transparency and accountability in the prioritisation process applied to innovative medicines.

Prognostic factors in chronic subdural hematoma: results from a monocentric consecutive surgical series of 605 patients.

BACKGROUND: The study of age-related diseases like chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is of high interest, considered the general ageing of the population. This investigation aimed to identify the main clinical characteristics of CSDH patients, to evaluate the impact of the disease on quality of life, its treatment and comorbidities/complications and to compare our data with other surgical series published over the past 5 years. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study including all consecutive patients operated for CSDH between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2013 at the Unit of Neurosurgery of our hospital was carried out. RESULTS: 605 patients were included in the study (66.0% male, mean age 77.5±10.5 years). History of brain trauma was reported in 65.6%. Common comorbidities were hypertension (59.0%), cardiopathies (36.0%), and previous stroke (23.6%). Clotting and coagulation alterations were present in 27.2% and 17.0%, respectively. In 24.0% of cases, the hematoma was bilateral. 17.3% had more than one surgery. Length of stay was of 14.8±10.1 days. Baseline Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), presurgical KPS, and KPS at discharge were 87.7±14.9, 64.9 ±19.8 and 76.7±27.2, respectively. A complete recovery was observed in 62.9% of patients. Mortality rate during hospitalization was 7.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge of clinical and surgical factors which might impact on the clinical outcomes could help to better manage patients with CSDH, which represents a surgically "simple" but, indeed, not trivial disease.

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Standard Care on Clinical Worsening in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening billions of people worldwide. Tocilizumab has shown promising results in retrospective studies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with a good safety profile. Objective: To evaluate the effect of early tocilizumab administration vs standard therapy in preventing clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial that randomized patients hospitalized between March 31 and June 11, 2020, with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive tocilizumab or standard of care in 24 hospitals in Italy. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction method with nasopharyngeal swab. Eligibility criteria included COVID-19 pneumonia documented by radiologic imaging, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg, and an inflammatory phenotype defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein. Interventions: Patients in the experimental arm received intravenous tocilizumab within 8 hours from randomization (8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg), followed by a second dose after 12 hours. Patients in the control arm received supportive care following the protocols of each clinical center until clinical worsening and then could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary composite outcome was defined as entry into the intensive care unit with invasive mechanical ventilation, death from all causes, or clinical aggravation documented by the finding of a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 150 mm Hg, whichever came first. Results: A total of 126 patients were randomized (60 to the tocilizumab group; 66 to the control group). The median (interquartile range) age was 60.0 (53.0-72.0) years, and the majority of patients were male (77 of 126, 61.1%). Three patients withdrew from the study, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses. Seventeen patients of 60 (28.3%) in the tocilizumab arm and 17 of 63 (27.0%) in the standard care group showed clinical worsening within 14 days since randomization (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59-1.86). Two patients in the experimental group and 1 in the control group died before 30 days from randomization, and 6 and 5 patients were intubated in the 2 groups, respectively. The trial was prematurely interrupted after an interim analysis for futility. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and Pao2/Fio2 ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg who received tocilizumab, no benefit on disease progression was observed compared with standard care. Further blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and to evaluate possible applications of tocilizumab in different stages of the disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04346355; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-001386-37.