Management of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: The Italian perspective on the second wave.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been an overwhelming challenge for worldwide health systems. Since the beginning of year 2020, COVID-19 has represented a potential harm for cancer patients and has often hindered oncology care. The Collegio Italiano dei Primari Oncologi Medici (CIPOMO) is an Italian association of head physicians in oncology departments, which promotes working and research activities in oncology on a national basis. During the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, the CIPOMO promoted a national survey aiming to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on oncologists' clinical activity and what changes have been made compared with the Italian situation during the first wave of the pandemic. Overall, 138 heads of medical oncology departments participated in this survey: 75 (54%) from the North, 24 (17%) from the Centre and 39 (28%) from the South of Italy and islands. This survey provides an overview of Italian oncologists facing the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic. The lesson learned during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic has led to a better organisation of clinical activities, and regular testing among healthcare practitioners, with better chances to grant patients' protection. However, the lack of standardised informatic platforms results in serious challenges in replacing frontal visits, often making a concrete reduction of patients' hospital accesses unfeasible. Oncologists need to keep preserving the continuum of care of patients. Standardisation of safety measures, together with the implementation of informatic platforms, can significantly improve oncology pathways during this second wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

Reactions and countermeasures of medical oncologists towards the incoming COVID-19 pandemic: a WhatsApp messenger-based report from the Italian College of Chief Medical Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: This descriptive, unplanned investigation has been undertaken to report reactions, attitudes and countermeasures which have been put in place and implemented by medical oncology units facing the COVID-19 outbreak in Southern Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data have been retrospectively obtained from the time-related analysis of conversations via a WhatsApp messenger-based group chat between the medical directors belonging to the Italian College of Medical Oncology Directors. Overall number, intensity and time trend of conversations related to reactions during the 4 weeks of observation related to the crucial events which occurred between 24 February and 28 March, 2020 2020 are included. A sentiment analysis of conversations was also carried out. RESULTS: We report 956 conversations among 19 medical oncology units related to reactions to the crucial events, such as epidemic spread, Government ordinances and guidelines during the 4 weeks of observation. Data show significant awareness of problems linked to the COVID-19 spread among oncologists and rapid diffusion of countermeasures. Actions taken were correlated time wise to crucial events. A correlation between conversations and the volume of activity of oncology units was found. By analysing the sentiment analysis of raw data, positive emotions were reduced in percentage over the weeks. A significant increase in negative emotions was observed as the outbreak impacted on the healthcare system. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the WhatsApp instant-messaging system seems to be a useful tool to share news and reactions between medical oncologists to rapidly implement necessary health measures and answers to most cancer patients' needs and queries in the COVID-19 pandemic scenario.

Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Aged at Least 75 Years: A Post-Hoc Subgroup Analysis of Three Phase II Trials.

Patients older than 75 years of age are usually excluded from metastatic colorectal cancer studies based on a combination chemotherapy containing oxaliplatin. Our group conducted three phase II trials in elderly patients in recent years. A post-hoc subgroup analysis of 67 patients aged at least 75 years was included in this study. Oxaliplatin was combined with capecitabine in two trials and with uracil-tegafur (UFT) plus folinic acid in the third trial. In one study, bevacizumab was also added to chemotherapy. The median age of patients was 77 years, and all had a good performance status (0 to 1). The observed overall response rate was 45%, comparable to younger patients (51%, p = 0.49). The estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) time and overall survival (OS) time were 8.7 and 19.3 months, respectively. These results did not significantly differ from those in younger patients (8.0 months for PFS (p = 0.58) and 19.7 months for OS (p = 0.94), respectively). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhea (13%), fatigue (13%), peripheral neuropathy (10%), and neutropenia (7%). Moreover, the toxicity was never statistically different from that in younger patients. The efficacy of oxaliplatin-based combination was maintained in fit elderly patients ≥75 years.

DPYD*6 plays an important role in fluoropyrimidine toxicity in addition to DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T: a comprehensive analysis in 1254 patients.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) is a highly polymorphic gene and classic deficient variants (i.e., c.1236G>A/HapB3, c.1679T>G, c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T) are characterized by impaired enzyme activity and risk of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients treated with fluoropyrimidines. The identification of poor metabolizers by pre-emptive DPYD screening may reduce the rate of ADRs but many patients with wild-type genotype for classic variants may still display ADRs. Therefore, the search for additional DPYD polymorphisms associated with ADRs may improve the safety of treatment with fluoropyrimidines. This study included 1254 patients treated with fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens and divided into cohort 1, which included 982 subjects suffering from gastrointestinal G≥2 and/or hematological G≥3 ADRs, and cohort 2 (control group), which comprised 272 subjects not requiring dose reduction, delay or discontinuation of treatment. Both groups were screened for DPYD variants c.496A>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, c.1601G>A (DPYD*4), c.1627A>G (DPYD*5), c.1679T>G (DPYD*13), c.1896T>C, c.1905 + 1G>A (DPYD*2A), c.2194G>A (DPYD*6), and c.2846A>T to assess their association with toxicity. Genetic analysis in the two cohorts were done by Real-Time PCR of DNA extracted from 3 ml of whole blood. DPYD c.496A>G, c.1601G>A, c.1627A>G, c.1896T>C, and c.2194G>A variants were found in both cohort 1 and 2, while c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T were present only in cohort 1. DPYD c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A/HapB3 were not found. Univariate analysis allowed the selection of c.1905+1G>A, c.2194G>A and c.2846A>T alleles as significantly associated with gastrointestinal and hematological ADRs (p < 0.05), while the c.496A>G variant showed a positive trend of association with neutropenia (p = 0.06). In conclusion, c.2194G>A is associated with clinically-relevant ADRs in addition to the already known c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T variants and should be evaluated pre-emptively to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-associated ADRs.

Eribulin mesylate use as third-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (VESPRY): a prospective, multicentre, observational study.

BACKGROUND: In real-world practice, eribulin mesylate provides significant survival benefit, with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, multicentre, observational study we evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of eribulin as third-line treatment in a homogeneous population. The primary endpoints were the safety profile and response in metastatic sites; secondary endpoints included the response in different subtypes, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From 2013 to 2016, 118 women were treated in 21 Sicilian institutions; the median age was 58 years (range 29-79), with 69% of patients under 65. The median cycles of eribulin were 5.5 (range 1-26). The most common adverse event was neutropenia (9.3%, 3 cases of grade 3, 4 of grade 4); only 1 case of QT prolongation was reported. Eribulin was effective in controlling metastatic disease in all sites, and it achieved the highest ORR in brain (16%) and liver (14.9%). Median OS was 31.8 months (95% CI 27.9-34.4) and median PFS 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-6.6). PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 2.8-8.4) in patients with triple-negative subtype. Median PFS was longer in patients over 65 years (6.1 months, 95% CI 4.4-8.3). In patients who had visceral metastases PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI 95% 3.5-6.6) and OS 33.9 months (95% CI 29.8-40.8). CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin as third-line treatment shows an acceptable safety profile and a substantial antitumour activity in the treatment of MBC, even in elderly patients and in those with visceral disease.

XELOX and bevacizumab followed by single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy as first-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer: the boxe study.

PURPOSE: The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). An increased risk of arterial thromboembolic events has been observed in some trials in older patients, and the potential benefit of a maintenance therapy with bevacizumab alone has not been clearly demonstrated. This phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) plus bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab alone in elderly patients with advanced CRC. METHODS: Treatment consisted of bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1, plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14, every 3 weeks up to a maximum of 8 cycles. Patients then received maintenance therapy consisting of bevacizumab alone (7.5 mg/kg) once every 3 weeks up to disease progression. The primary study end-points were safety and response rate. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were recruited. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37 to 68%], with 86% of patients achieving disease control. Median PFS and overall survival were 11.5 months (95% CI 10.0-12.9 months) and 19.3 months (95% CI 16.5-22.1 months), respectively. In all, 10 patients (23%) had grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), the most common being diarrhea (9%), neutropenia (7%), peripheral neuropathy (7%), and stomatitis (7%). No patients died because of treatment-related AEs. The rate of bevacizumab-related AEs (hypertension, thromboembolic events, and gastrointestinal perforation) was consistent with that reported earlier in the general CRC population. CONCLUSION: The combination of XELOX and bevacizumab is effective and has a manageable tolerability profile when administered to elderly patients with advanced CRC. Maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be considered to extend PFS in this setting of patients.

Discontinuation of bevacizumab and FOLFIRI administered up to a maximum of 12 cycles as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective Italian study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when added to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The hypothesis that bevacizumab discontinuation could lead to an angiogenesis flare and eventually to an accelerated tumor progression has not been confirmed in a recent large pooled analysis. Therefore the optimal duration of bevacizumab still remains undefined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PFS and OS were retrospectively analyzed in patients with previously untreated mCRC who received bevacizumab 5 mg/Kg and standard FOLFIRI regimen (leucovorin, infusional fluorouracil and irinotecan) up to a maximum of 12 cycles. RESULTS: Data from 209 patients were collected and analyzed. The median follow-up was 24 months. Fifty-five (26.3%) patients received at least 6 administrations and 114 (54.5%) received a maximum of 12 administrations of bevacizumab. Median exposure to bevacizumab was 148 days (4.9 months). Median PFS and OS were 10.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-12.2 months] and 31.6 months (95% CI 25.8-37.3 months), respectively. Overall objective response rate was 49.8% (95% CI 42.9-56.6) and the disease control rate 81.8%. Approximately 65% and 30% of patients received some form of second- and third-line therapy, respectively. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis remarkably long PFS and OS were obtained with a first-line therapy duration limited to a maximum of 12 cycles. Our data does not support a decreased PFS or increased mortality after discontinuation of bevacizumab in mCRC patients.

Cancer patient-centered home care: a new model for health care in oncology.

Patient-centered home care is a new model of assistance, which may be integrated with more traditional hospital-centered care especially in selected groups of informed and trained patients. Patient-centered care is based on patients' needs rather than on prognosis, and takes into account the emotional and psychosocial aspects of the disease. This model may be applied to elderly patients, who present comorbid diseases, but it also fits with the needs of younger fit patients. A specialized multidisciplinary team coordinated by experienced medical oncologists and including pharmacists, psychologists, nurses, and social assistance providers should carry out home care. Other professional figures may be required depending on patients' needs. Every effort should be made to achieve optimal coordination between the health professionals and the reference hospital and to employ shared evidence-based guidelines, which in turn guarantee safety and efficacy. Comprehensive care has to be easily accessible and requires a high level of education and knowledge of the disease for both the patients and their caregivers. Patient-centered home care represents an important tool to improve quality of life and help cancer patients while also being cost effective.