Bone health and body composition in prostate cancer: Meet-URO and AIOM consensus about prevention and management strategies.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) treatments are associated with a detrimental impact on bone health (BH) and body composition. However, the evidence on these issues is limited and contradictory. This consensus, based on the Delphi method, provides further guidance on BH management in PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2023, a survey made up of 37 questions and 74 statements was developed by a group of oncologists and endocrinologists with expertise in PCa and BH. In June 2023, 67 selected Italian experts, belonging to the Italian scientific societies Italian Association of Medical Oncology and Italian Network for Research in Urologic-Oncology (Meet-URO), were invited by e-mail to complete it, rating their strength of agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale. An agreement ≥75% defined the statement as accepted. RESULTS: In non-metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, the panel agreed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone implies sufficient fracture risk to warrant antifracture therapy with bone-targeting agents (BTAs) for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) prevention (79%). Therefore, no consensus was reached (48%) for the treatment with BTAs of patients receiving short-term ADT (<6 months). All patients receiving active treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (75%), non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa (89%) and metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) without bone metastases (84%) should be treated with BTAs at the doses and schedule for CTIBL prevention. All mCRPC patients with bone metastasis should be treated with BTAs to reduce skeletal-related events (94%). In all settings, the panel analyzed the type and timing of treatments and examinations to carry out for BH monitoring. The panel agreed on the higher risk of sarcopenic obesity of these patients and its correlation with bone fragility. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus highlights areas lacking major agreement, like non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients undergoing short-term ADT. Evaluation of these issues in prospective clinical trials and identification of early biomarkers of bone loss are particularly urgent.

Glycemic control and cancer outcomes in oncologic patients with diabetes: an Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Medical Diabetologists (AMD), Italian Society of Diabetology (SID), Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE), Italian Society of Pharmacology (SIF) multidisciplinary critical view.

BACKGROUND:  Increasing evidence suggests that diabetes increases the risk of developing different types of cancer. Hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia and chronic inflammation, characteristic of diabetes, could represent possible mechanisms involved in cancer development in diabetic patients. At the same time, cancer increases the risk of developing new-onset diabetes, mainly caused by the use of specific anticancer therapies. Of note, diabetes has been associated with a ∼10% increase in mortality for all cancers in comparison with subjects who did not have diabetes. Diabetes is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with cancer, and more recent findings suggest a key role for poor glycemic control in this regard. Nevertheless, the association between glycemic control and cancer outcomes in oncologic patients with diabetes remains unsettled and poorly debated. PURPOSE:  The current review seeks to summarize the available evidence on the effect of glycemic control on cancer outcomes, as well as on the possibility that timely treatment of hyperglycemia and improved glycemic control in patients with cancer and diabetes may favorably affect cancer outcomes.

Predicting early recurrence after resection of initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: the role of baseline and pre-surgery clinical, radiological and molecular factors in a real-life multicentre experience.

BACKGROUND: Advances in surgical techniques and systemic treatments have increased the likelihood of achieving radical surgery and long-term survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). Nonetheless, roughly half of the patients resected after an upfront systemic therapy experience disease relapse within 6 months from surgery, thus leading to the question whether surgery is actually beneficial for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A real-world dataset of mCRC patients with initially unresectable liver-limited disease treated with conversion chemotherapy followed by radical resection of CRLMs at three high-volume Italian institutions was retrospectively assessed with the aim of investigating the association of baseline and pre-surgical clinical, radiological and molecular factors with the risk of relapse within 6 or 12 months from surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 268 patients were included in the analysis and 207 (77%) experienced recurrence. Ninety-six (46%) of them had disease relapse within 6 months after CRLM resection and in spite of several variables associated with early recurrence at univariate analyses, only primary tumour resection at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.89, P = 0.02] remained significant in the multivariable model. Among patients with resected primary tumours, pN+ stage was associated with higher risk of disease relapse within 6 months (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.23-7.41, P = 0.02). One hundred and forty-nine patients (72%) had disease relapse within 12 months after CRLMs resection but none of the analysed variables was independently associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical, radiological and molecular factors assessed before and after conversion chemotherapy do not reliably predict early recurrence after secondary resection of initially unresectable CRLMs. While novel markers are needed to optimize the cost/efficacy balance of surgical procedures, CRLM resection should be offered as soon as metastases become resectable during first-line chemotherapy to all patients eligible for surgery.

Under-reporting of subjective symptoms and its prognostic value: a pooled analysis of 12 cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists tend to under-report subjective symptoms during cancer treatment. This study describes the under-reporting rate of selected symptoms and explores its association with overall survival (OS). A secondary aim is to test the association of patient-reported symptoms with OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis on data pooled from 12 randomized trials, promoted by the National Cancer Institute of Naples (Italy), enrolling patients between 2002 and 2019, with published primary analyses. Occurrence and grade of six side-effects (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and fatigue) reported by physicians were compared with corresponding symptoms reported by patients in quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires. Under-reporting was defined as the rate of cases reported grade 0 by the physician while grade ≥1 by the patient. Prognostic value was tested in a multivariable model stratified by trial, including age, sex and performance status as confounders. A landmark threshold was defined for OS analyses. RESULTS: 3792 patients with advanced lung, ovarian, pancreatic, breast or colorectal cancer were pooled; 2603 (68.6%) were eligible having at least one toxicity assessment and one QoL questionnaire, before the first planned disease restaging. Concordance between physicians' and patients' reporting was low with Cohen's k coefficients ranging from 0.03 (fatigue) to 0.33 (vomiting). Under-reporting ranged from 52.7% (nausea) to 80.5% (anorexia), and was not associated with OS. Patient-reported anorexia, vomiting and fatigue ('a little' or more) were significantly associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSIONS: Under-reporting of treatment side-effects is frequent, but it does not affect OS. Patients' reported symptoms should be used for prognostic evaluation.

Confirmatory validation analysis of the PROFFIT questionnaire to assess financial toxicity in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) questionnaire was developed to measure financial toxicity (FT) and identify its determinants. The aim of the present study was to confirm its validity in a prospective cohort of patients receiving anticancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2021 to July 2022, 221 patients were enrolled at 10 Italian centres. Selected items of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire represented the anchors, specifically, question 28 (Q-28) on financial difficulties, and questions 29-30 measuring global health status/quality of life (HR-QOL). The study had 80% power to detect a 0.20 correlation coefficient (r) between anchors and PROFFIT-score (items 1-7, range 0-100, 100 indicating maximum FT) with bilateral alpha 0.05 and 80% power. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. FT determinants (items 8-16) were described. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 65 years, 116 (52.5%) were females, 96 (43.4%) had low education level. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit of the PROFFIT-score. Significant partial correlation of PROFFIT-score was found with Q-28 (r = 0.51) and HR-QOL (r = -0.23). Mean (SD) PROFFIT-score at baseline was 36.5 (24.9); it was statistically significantly higher for patients living in South Italy, those with lower education level, those who were freelancer/unemployed at diagnosis and those who reported significant economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean (SD) scores of determinants ranged from 17.6 (27.1) for item 14 (support from medical staff) to 49.0 (36.3) for item 10 (expenses for medicines or supplements). PROFFIT-score significantly increased with worsening response to determinants. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of PROFFIT-score in an independent sample of patients was successful. The instrument is now being used in clinical studies.

Cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse persons: results from two national surveys among providers and health service users by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology.

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.

Vaccination for seasonal influenza, pneumococcal infection and SARS-CoV-2 in patients with solid tumors: recommendations of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM).

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.

Subgroup analyses in randomized phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours: a systematic review of trials published between 2017 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials are very common in oncology; nevertheless, the methodological approach has not been systematically evaluated. The present analysis was conducted with the aim of describing the prevalence and methodological characteristics of the subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed was carried out to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials conducted in adult patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, published between 2017 and 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 253 publications were identified. Subgroup analyses were reported in 217 (86%) publications. A statistically significant association of presence of subgroup analysis with study sponsor was observed: subgroup analyses were reported in 157 (94%) for-profit trials compared with 60 (70%) non-profit trials (P < 0.001). Description of the methodology of subgroup analysis was completely lacking in 82 trials (38%), only cited without methodological details in 100 trials (46%) and fully described in 35 trials (16%). Forest plot of subgroup analyses for the primary endpoint was available in 195 publications (77%). Among publications with reported forest plots, the median number of subgroups for primary endpoint was 19 (range 6-78). Out of the 217 publications with subgroup analyses, authors discuss the heterogeneity of treatment effect among different subgroups in 173 publications (80%), although a formal test for interaction for subgroup analysis of primary endpoint was reported for at least one variable only in 60 publications (28%). Correction for multiplicity was explicitly carried out only in nine trials (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The very high prevalence of subgroup analyses in published papers, together with their methodological weaknesses, makes advisable an adequate education about their correct presentation and correct reading. More attention about proper planning and conduction of subgroup analysis should be paid not only by readers, but also by authors, journal editors and reviewers.

Addition of androgen receptor-targeted agents to androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) historically represented the milestone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Recently, combining androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) or docetaxel with ADT significantly improved clinical outcomes in this setting. The efficacy of the combined use of an ARTA with docetaxel and ADT (triplet), however, was unknown, and often conflicting data derived from subgroup analysis of randomized phase III trials. In order to better define the benefits and risks of the triplet in mHSPC, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical trials. METHODS: A literature search with no data restriction using Medline/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and American Society of Clinical Oncology/European Society for Medical Oncology (ASCO/ESMO) Meeting abstracts was carried out up to April 2022. The meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary endpoints. For OS and PFS, summary hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated; for safety, risk ratio (RR) was assessed. Random- or fixed-effects models were used, depending on studies heterogeneity. RESULTS: Five randomized clinical trials fulfilled the prespecified inclusion criteria. The triplet significantly improved OS (fixed-effect, HR = 0.74; P < 0.00001) and PFS (fixed-effect; HR = 0.50 for clinical PFS, HR = 0.49 for radiological PFS; P < 0.0001) compared with docetaxel plus ADT. We did not show heterogeneity between treatment efficacy and the disease burden, metachronous versus synchronous presentation, concomitant versus sequential strategy. Compared with docetaxel + ADT, the triplet did not increase the risk of adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.00, P = 0.27 for any-grade AEs; RR = 1.13, P = 0.14 for severe AEs), except for severe hypertension (RR = 1.73, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Emerging evidence supports the combination of an ARTA plus docetaxel and ADT in mHSPC patients. Given the availability of several strategies in this setting, clinical characteristics and drug safety profile may help clinicians select the appropriate treatment for mHSPC patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment intensification.

Position paper of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology on the impact of COVID-19 on Italian oncology and the path forward: the 2021 Matera statement.

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.

Clinical efficacy of sequential treatments in KRASG12C-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: findings from a real-life multicenter Italian study (CRC-KR GOIM).

BACKGROUND: The presence of KRASG12C mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) correlates with poor outcome. Although different selective inhibitors are under clinical development, the optimal treatment remains uncertain. Thus, we conducted a retrospective analysis in a large cohort of patients with KRASG12C mCRC treated in 12 Italian oncology units. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable mCRC harboring KRASG12C mutation receiving a first-line chemotherapy doublet or triplet between 2011 and 2021 were included in the study. Evaluation of overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 256/6952 (3.7%) patients with mCRC displayed KRASG12C mutation; of these, 111 met the inclusion criteria. The ORR of first-line therapy was 38.7% (43/111). Median PFS (mPFS) was 9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.5-10.5 months]. After progression, only 62% and 36% of the patients are fit to receive second or third lines of treatment, with limited clinical benefit. Median OS (mOS) was 21 months (95% CI 17.4-24.6 months). In patients receiving first-line triplet chemotherapy, ORR was 56.3% (9/16), mPFS was 13 months (95% CI 10.3-15.7 months) and mOS was 32 months (95% CI 7.7-56.3 months). For irinotecan-based doublets, ORR was 34.5 (10/29), mPFS was 9 months (95% CI 6.4-11.6 months) and mOS was 22 months (95% CI 16.0-28.0 months). With oxaliplatin-based doublets ORR was 36.4% (24/62), mPFS was 7 months (95% CI 4.6-9.4 months) and mOS was 18 months (95% CI, 13.6-22.4 months). CONCLUSION: Patients with KRASG12C-mutant mCRC had a disappointing response to standard treatments. Within the limitations of a retrospective study, these results suggest that first-line chemotherapy intensification with FOLFOXIRI is a valid option in fit patients.

Vaccination for herpes zoster in patients with solid tumors: a position paper on the behalf of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM).

Herpes zoster (HZ) is the infectious reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus. HZ is more frequent in immunocompromised subjects, including patients with cancer. HZ complications can even last for years with a consequent delay in treatment of the underlying malignancy and with an unfavorable impact on quality of life. Nowadays, HZ is a vaccine-preventable disease: the recent approval of adjuvanted glycoprotein E-based recombinant zoster vaccine has changed preventive perspectives in immunocompromised subjects. Recombinant zoster vaccine induced both strong humoral and cellular immune responses also in immunocompromised patients. The question is, therefore, to which categories of cancer patients we should recommend HZ vaccination. Based on a careful review of the available data present in the literature, including recommendations and expert opinions, we report the position of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica on HZ vaccination in adult patients with solid tumors, thus providing clinical practice advice in a field where clear-cut information is missing.

Implementation of preventive and predictive BRCA testing in patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer: a position paper of Italian Scientific Societies.

Constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with an increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers. Current evidence indicates that BRCA1/2 PVs are also associated with pancreatic cancer, and that BRCA2 PVs are associated with prostate cancer risk. The identification of carriers of constitutional PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes allows the implementation of individual and family prevention pathways, through validated screening programs and risk-reducing strategies. According to the relevant and increasing therapeutic predictive implications, the inclusion of BRCA testing in the routine management of patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancers represent a key requirement to optimize medical or surgical therapeutic and prevention decision-making, and access to specific anticancer therapies. Therefore, accurate patient selection, the use of standardized and harmonized procedures, and adherence to homogeneous testing criteria, are essential elements to implement BRCA testing in clinical practice. This consensus position paper has been developed and approved by a multidisciplinary Expert Panel of 64 professionals on behalf of the AIOM-AIRO-AISP-ANISC-AURO-Fondazione AIOM-SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SICO-SIF-SIGE-SIGU-SIU-SIURO-UROP Italian Scientific Societies, and a patient association (aBRCAdaBRA Onlus). The working group included medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, medical and molecular geneticists, clinical molecular biologists, surgical and molecular pathologists, organ specialists such as gynecologists, gastroenterologists and urologists, and pharmacologists. The manuscript is based on the expert consensus and reports the best available evidence, according to the current eligibility criteria for BRCA testing and counseling, it also harmonizes with current Italian National Guidelines and Clinical Recommendations.

Impact of age and gender on the efficacy and safety of upfront therapy with panitumumab plus FOLFOX followed by panitumumab-based maintenance: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the Valentino study.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients fit enough to receive combination chemotherapy plus biological agents is an issue of growing interest. Also, gender-specific differential toxicity and efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based upfront treatments need to be explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Valentino was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial, investigating two panitumumab-based maintenance strategies following first-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX in RAS wild-type mCRC patients. We carried out a subgroup analysis, aimed at assessing the differences in efficacy, safety and quality of life (QoL) according to age (<70 versus ≥70 years) and gender (male versus female). Efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR); safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: No significant differences in terms of PFS, OS and ORR were observed between patients aged <70 or ≥70 years and the effect of the maintenance treatment arm on survival outcomes was similar in the two subgroups. The safety profile of both induction and maintenance treatment and the impact on QoL were similar in elderly and younger patients. No significant differences in PFS, OS, ORR or clinical benefit rate were observed according to gender. A significantly higher rate of overall grade 3/4 AEs (P = 0.008) and of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.017), any grade and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P < 0.0001) and any grade conjunctivitis (P = 0.033) was reported in female as compared to male patients. Conversely, we reported a significantly higher incidence of any grade skin rash (P = 0.0007) and hypomagnesemia (P = 0.029) in male patients. CONCLUSIONS: The upfront choice of an anti-EGFR-based doublet chemotherapy followed by a maintenance strategy represents a valuable option in RAS wild-type mCRC irrespective of gender and age, though a careful evaluation of patients to maximize the risk/benefit ratio is warranted.

Late-onset and long-lasting immune-related adverse events from immune checkpoint-inhibitors: An overlooked aspect in immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionised cancer therapy but frequently cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Description of late-onset and duration of irAEs in the literature is often incomplete. METHODS: To investigate reporting and incidence of late-onset and long-lasting irAEs, we reviewed all registration trials leading to ICI's approval by the US FDA and/or EMA up to December 2019. We analysed real-world data from all lung cancer (LC) and melanoma (Mel) patients treated with approved ICIs at the University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV) from 2011 to 2019. To account for the immortal time bias, we used a time-dependent analysis to assess the potential association between irAEs and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Duration of irAEs and proportion of patients with ongoing toxicities at data cut-off were not specified in 56/62 (90%) publications of ICIs registration trials. In our real-world analysis, including 437 patients (217 LC, 220 Mel), 229 (52.4%) experienced at least one grade ≥2 toxicity, for a total of 318 reported irAEs, of which 112 (35.2%) were long-lasting (≥6 months) and about 40% were ongoing at a median follow-up of 369 days [194-695] or patient death. The cumulative probability of irAE onset from treatment initiation was 42.8%, 51.0% and 57.3% at 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively. The rate of ongoing toxicity from the time of first toxicity onset was 42.8%, 38.4% and 35.7% at 6, 12 and 24 months. Time-dependent analysis showed no significant association between the incidence of irAEs and OS in both cohorts (log Rank p = 0.67 and 0.19 for LC and Mel, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Late-onset and long-lasting irAEs are underreported but common events during ICIs therapy. Time-dependent survival analysis is advocated to assess their impact on OS. Real-world evidence is warranted to fully capture and characterise late-onset and long-lasting irAEs in order to implement appropriate strategies for patient surveillance and follow-up.

COVID-19 infection in cancer patients: what has been the contribution of Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM) to oncological care since the beginning of the first pandemic wave?

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.

Hypersensitivity to platinum salts according to BRCA status in ovarian cancer: A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to platinum are an important issue in the treatment of patients (pts) with ovarian cancer (OC). Germline BRCA mutations have been proposed as a risk factor. We aimed at evaluating the incidence and severity of HSRs to platinum in OC pts. with known BRCA status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 432 pts. from 5 Italian Centers. In addition, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published series. RESULTS: Four hundred nine pts. received at least one prior platinum-based treatment line: 314 were BRCA wild type (77%) and 95 were BRCA mutated (23%). There was no statistical difference in exposure to platinum. Incidence of any grade HSRs was higher among BRCA mutated pts. [9% vs 18%, p = 0.019] and the time-to-HSRs curves show that the risk increases with the duration of platinum exposure, in BRCA mutated pts. more than in BRCA wild type. A multivariable analysis showed that harboring a germline BRCA mutation was related to a higher incidence of HSRs (HR: 1.84, 95% CI 1.00-3.99, p = 0.05) while having received pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was related to a lower incidence of HSRs (HR: 0.03 95% CI 0.004-0.22, p = 0.001). The systematic review confirmed the higher incidence of HSRs in BRCA mutated pts., though heterogeneity among series was significant. CONCLUSIONS: In OC pts. with BRCA mutations, there is a significantly higher incidence of HSRs to carboplatin, not justified by longer drug exposure. On the other hand, PLD exerted a protective role in our series.