Association of opioid use with survival in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: it is time for evidence-based behaviors.

Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with pain experienced by most patients undergoing cancer treatment. Opioids are the recommended treatment for cancer pain management, but recent studies suggest a negative association between opioid use and survival rates among patients undergoing immunotherapy. However, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding causality from these observational data. Immunotherapy, which boosts the body's immune system to fight cancer cells, has emerged as a promising treatment option for all types of cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can activate the anticancer function of exhausted T cells and have shown remarkable survival benefits in patients with multiple malignancies. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the use of opioids during ICI treatment has an adverse effect on patient prognosis, while the use of NSAIDs is not significantly associated with the prognosis in patients treated with ICIs. These reviews have major limitations due to the retrospective nature of the studies and the multiple factors that can influence the phenomenon. Therefore, caution is required when interpreting results from retrospective data on drug interactions. The findings of this study are alarming and potentially harmful to patients with cancer suffering from pain or other symptoms requiring opioid drugs.

Palliative sedation and time to death in home palliative care: retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We described time to death and rates of palliative sedation during home palliative care leveraging a retrospective cohort of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The cohort consists of 143 patients with solid or haematological malignancies admitted to home palliative care in the Tuscany region in central Italy. Only patients for whom a date of death was available were included. The outcome measures were time from admission to home palliative care to death and receipt of palliative sedation. RESULTS: 143 patients were included in this report. Lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) scores were significantly associated with anticancer treatment at admission, as was younger age. Increasing ECOG PS scores were associated with lower survival time. Women and patients on anticancer treatment had longer survival time. Thirty-eight per cent of patients underwent palliative sedation at home; palliative sedation was more frequent among younger patients and among patients with brain or lung cancer. The most common reasons for palliative sedation were delirium and dyspnoea. CONCLUSIONS: ECOG PS, sex and anticancer treatment had a significant impact on survival time. Thirty-eight per cent of patients in our cohort underwent home palliative sedation for refractory symptoms, most often delirium and dyspnoea.

Multidisciplinary approach, continuous care and opioid management in cancer pain: case series and review of the literature.

Underlying cancer pain has heterogenous aetiologies and mechanisms. It requires detailed and comprehensive pain assessment, combined with personalized treatment. A multidisciplinary team is essential to providing the best management of cancer pain at every disease stage, improving the quality of life and outcomes in patients with cancer. This narrative literature review emphasizes the value of providing all patients with multidisciplinary pain management in their preferred care setting. Real-life experiences are also reported to witness the efforts of physicians to properly manage cancer pain. This article is part of the Management of breakthrough cancer pain Special Issue: https://www.drugsincontext.com/special_issues/management-of-breakthrough-cancer-pain.

Early palliative care for solid and blood cancer patients and caregivers: Quantitative and qualitative results of a long-term experience as a case of value-based medicine.

Introduction: Cancer patients and their caregivers have substantial unmet needs, that negatively impact the clinical outcome and quality of life. However, interventions aimed to address such needs are still suboptimal, failing to answer the recent healthcare call for the adoption of value-based models of care. In the case of incurable oncologic and hematologic cancers, a value-based model of care should plan advanced care on patients' needs and include the quality of death as an outcome. The integration of early palliative care into standard oncologic care for patients with advanced cancers represents a recent innovative model of assistance whose benefits for patients and caregivers are now widely recognized. The key elements underlying the reasons behind these benefits are the multidisciplinary collaboration (teamwork), an honest and empathetic communication between the early palliative care team, the patient, and the caregiver (rapport building), and the ability to detect changes in the physical/psychosocial wellbeing of the patient, along the whole disease trajectory (constant monitoring). Methods: This community case study documents the quantitative and qualitative results of a long term clinical and research experience in delivering early palliative care service to address both solid and blood cancer patients' and their primary caregivers' needs. Results: Data showed decreased use of chemotherapy, blood transfusions and referral to intensive care units near the end of life; increased life expectancy; improved symptom burden and mood; increased frequency of goals-of-care and advanced care planning conversations. Hope perception among bereaved caregivers was associated with resilience and realistic expectations raising from honest communication with the early palliative care team and appreciation toward the model. Patients and caregivers perceived the possibility of a good death as realistic and not as an unlikely event as it was for patients and caregivers on standard oncologic care only. Gratitude expressions toward the model and the team were frequently identified in their reports and positively associated with communication and spirituality. Conclusions: These findings are discussed in the context of an updated literature review regarding value-based care and suggest that early palliative care integrated into standard oncology care may be considered as an effective model of value-based care.

Gratitude among advanced cancer patients and their caregivers: The role of early palliative care.

Objective: A cancer diagnosis represents a unique trauma, given its life-threatening, multidimensional, and uncertain nature. Gratitude is a construct representing the emotional state that arises when individuals recognize that a benefit has been received as a result of someone else's action or a spiritual entity's intervention. Based on the positive psychological wellbeing, gratitude has been associated with improved health outcomes even in the disease setting. Thus, the models of care that foster gratitude should be adopted in the clinical context. This study aims to explore whether and how gratitude may originate in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers undergoing early palliative care (EPC). Methods: We analyzed 251 reports from 133 patients and 118 caregivers describing their clinical experience in two EPC units. The sources of gratitude were identified and ranked based on their frequencies. Words expressing gratitude and words referring to communication and spirituality were collected by means of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software and correlated. Results: In total, 123 (92.5%) of 133 patients' and 97 (82.2%) of 118 caregivers' reports, respectively, included explicit or implicit expressions of gratitude. Gratitude was associated specifically with successful physical symptom management, emotional support, improved attitude toward death, better information, humanity, and the familiar environment. The use of words of gratitude in patients' reports was positively correlated with the use of words referring to communication (r = .215, p = .026) and spirituality (r = .612, p <.001). Conclusion: Our results suggest that interventions within the EPC model based on doctor-patient-caregiver communication may allow patients and caregivers to experience a feeling of gratitude, and this may represent a resource to be exploited to improve their physical and psychosocial wellbeing.

[Medical cannabis. Facilitate the proposal and sustainability for the training of healthcare personnel and the conduct of clinical trials in the cancer population.] / Cannabis terapeutica.

In light of the establishment of a permanent technical work table to address issues relating to cannabis for medical use, it is necessary to reflect free from ideological conditioning on the effectiveness and perception of the use of these "products" on the populations indicated in the regulatory note current. Taking a cue from two recently published works, which photograph a poor level of knowledge on medical cannabis by patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals, we believe it is necessary to overcome ideological preconceptions by building educational programs and national guidelines that offer therapeutic opportunities based on solid scientific evidence.

High familial burden of cancer correlates with improved outcome from immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC independent of somatic DNA damage response gene status.

Family history of cancer (FHC) is a hallmark of cancer risk and an independent predictor of outcome, albeit with uncertain biologic foundations. We previously showed that FHC-high patients experienced prolonged overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) following PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. To validate our findings in patients with NSCLC, we evaluated two multicenter cohorts of patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving either first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy. From each cohort, 607 patients were randomly case-control matched accounting for FHC, age, performance status, and disease burden. Compared to FHC-low/negative, FHC-high patients experienced longer OS (HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.46-0.95], p = 0.0281), PFS (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.48-0.89]; p = 0.0074) and higher disease control rates (DCR, 86.4% vs 67.5%, p = 0.0096), within the pembrolizumab cohort. No significant associations were found between FHC and OS/PFS/DCR within the chemotherapy cohort. We explored the association between FHC and somatic DNA damage response (DDR) gene alterations as underlying mechanism to our findings in a parallel cohort of 118 NSCLC, 16.9% of whom were FHC-high. The prevalence of ≥ 1 somatic DDR gene mutation was 20% and 24.5% (p = 0.6684) in FHC-high vs. FHC-low/negative, with no differences in tumor mutational burden (6.0 vs. 7.6 Mut/Mb, p = 0.6018) and tumor cell PD-L1 expression. FHC-high status identifies NSCLC patients with improved outcomes from pembrolizumab but not chemotherapy, independent of somatic DDR gene status. Prospective studies evaluating FHC alongside germline genetic testing are warranted.

Clinical outcomes of NSCLC patients experiencing early immune-related adverse events to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors leading to treatment discontinuation.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of early immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) upon immunotherapy is not fully understood. METHODS: The Leading to Treatment Discontinuation cohort included 24 patients experiencing severe irAEs after one of two administrations of single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting for metastatic NSCLC between November 2015 and June 2019. The control cohort was composed of 526 patients treated with single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting with no severe irAE reported. The primary end points were median progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, risk of progression of disease and risk of death. The correlation of clinic pathological features with early severe irAEs represented the secondary end point. RESULTS: Median PFS was 9.3 and 8.4 months, median OS was 12.0 months and 14.2 months at a median follow-up of 18.1 and 22.6 months in the LTD cohort and in the control cohort, respectively. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 17.2-78.8) in the LTD cohort and 32.7% (95% CI 27.8-38.2) in the control cohort. The risk of disease progression was higher in the LTD cohort (HR 2.52 [95% 1.10-5.78], P = .0288). CONCLUSIONS: We found no survival benefit in LTD cohort compared to the control cohort. However, early and severe irAEs might underly an immune anti-tumor activation. We identified a significant association with first-line immune checkpoints inhibitors treatment and good PS. Further studies on risk prediction and management of serious and early irAEs in NSCLC patients are needed.

A multicenter study of skin toxicity management in patients with left-sided, RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line anti-EGFR-based doublet regimen: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: Skin toxicity in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is well known. However, ad hoc ESMO guidelines have only recently been published. AIM AND METHODS: To describe the management (pre-emptive or reactive) of anti-EGFR-related cutaneous adverse events (AEs), in a real-life clinical context, in a selected population of patients with left-sided, metastatic RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (i.e., panitumumab or cetuximab) as first-line regimen at 22 Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were treatment-related adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 515 patients included in the analysis, 173 (33.6%) received a pre-emptive and 342 (66.4%) a reactive treatment. The median follow-up period for the overall population was 30.0 months. A significantly lower incidence of any grade acneiform rash was found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort both in the overall population (78.6% vs 94.4%, p < 0.001) and in patients treated with panitumumab (76.1% vs 93.7%, p < 0.001) or cetuximab (83.3% vs 95.4%, p = 0.004), respectively. A lower incidence of any grade (41.6% vs 50.9%, p = 0.047) but a higher incidence of G3-G4 (9.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.042) paronychia/nail disorders were found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort. Nevertheless, a lower rate of patients within the reactive compared to the pre-emptive cohort was referred to dermatological counseling (21.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, p = 0.001). A higher rate of anti-EGFR therapy modification was needed in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort (35.9% vs 41.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). The pre-emptive approach did not reduce the efficacy of antineoplastic therapy compared to the reactive in terms of ORR (69.2% vs 72.8%), median PFS (12.3 vs 13.0 months), and median OS (28.8 vs 33.5 months). CONCLUSION: Although recommended by international guidelines, the pre-emptive approach of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in mCRC patients still appears less adopted in daily clinical practice, compared to the reactive one. A wider reception and application of this indication is desirable to improve patients' quality of life without compromising the continuity and efficacy of antineoplastic therapy.

Host immune-inflammatory markers to unravel the heterogeneous outcome and assessment of patients with PD-L1 ≥50% metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and poor performance status receiving first-line immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥50% metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and ECOG performance status (PS) of 2 treated with first-line immunotherapy have heterogeneous clinical assessment and outcomes. METHODS: To explore the role of immune-inflammatory surrogates by the validated lung immuno-oncology prognostic score (LIPS) score, including the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the pretreatment use of steroids, alongside other prognostic variables. A retrospective analysis of 128 patients with PS2 and PD-L1 ≥50% mNSCLC treated between April 2018 and September 2019 with first-line pembrolizumab in a real-world setting was performed. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 15.3 months, the 1-year overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 32.3% (95% CI: 30.9-33.9) and 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.8-4.7), respectively. The NLR, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and pretreatment steroids results were the only significant prognostic factors on the univariate analysis and independent prognostic factors by the multivariate analysis on both OS and PFS. The LIPS score, including the NLR and pretreatment steroids, identified 29 (23%) favourable-risk patients, with 0 factors, 1-year OS of 67.6% and median PFS of 8.2 months; 57 (45%) intermediate-risk patients, with 1 factor, 1-year OS 32.1% and median PFS 2.7 months; 42 (33%) poor-risk patients, with both factors, 1-year OS of 10.7% and median PFS of 1.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of pre-existing imbalance of the host immune response by combined blood and clinical immune-inflammatory markers may represent a way to unravel the heterogeneous outcome and assessment of patients with mNSCLC and poor PS in the immune-oncology setting.

COVID-19 in breast cancer patients: a subanalysis of the OnCovid registry.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and mortality than the rest of the population. Breast cancer patients seem to have better prognosis when infected by SARS-CoV-2 than other cancer patients. METHODS: We report a subanalysis of the OnCovid study providing more detailed information in the breast cancer population. RESULTS: We included 495 breast cancer patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mean age was 62.6 years; 31.5% presented more than one comorbidity. The most frequent breast cancer subtype was luminal-like (n = 245, 49.5%) and 177 (35.8%) had metastatic disease. A total of 332 (67.1%) patients were receiving active treatment, with radical intent in 232 (47.6%) of them. Hospitalization rate was 58.2% and all-cause mortality rate was 20.3%. One hundred twenty-nine (26.1%) patients developed one COVID-19 complication, being acute respiratory failure the most common (n = 74, 15.0%). In the multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years, presence of COVID-19 complications, and metastatic disease were factors correlated with worse outcomes, while ongoing anticancer therapy at time of COVID-19 diagnosis appeared to be a protective factor. No particular oncological treatment was related to higher risk of complications. In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 73 (18.3%) patients had some kind of modification on their oncologic treatment. At the first oncological reassessment (median time: 46.9 days ± 36.7), 255 (51.6%) patients reported to be fully recovered from the infection. There were 39 patients (7.9%) with long-term SARS-CoV-2-related complications. CONCLUSION: In the context of COVID-19, our data confirm that breast cancer patients appear to have lower complications and mortality rate than expected in other cancer populations. Most breast cancer patients can be safely treated for their neoplasm during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Oncological treatment has no impact on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 complications, and, especially in the curative setting, the treatment should be modified as little as possible.

Post-Induction Management in Patients With Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Anti-EGFR-Based Doublet Regimens: A Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND: Few data regarding post-induction management following first-line anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based doublet regimens in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude, and the safety and effectiveness of post-induction strategies in consecutive patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen, who did not experience disease progression within 6 months from induction initiation, at 21 Italian and 1 Spanish Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: At the data cutoff, among 686 consecutive patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen from March 2012 to October 2020, 355 eligible patients have been included in the present analysis. Among these, 118 (33.2%), 66 (18.6%), and 11 (3.1%) received a maintenance with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FU/LV)+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, and 5FU/LV, respectively, while 160 (45.1%) patients continued induction treatment (non-maintenance) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient decision, or completion of planned treatment. The median period of follow-up for the overall population was 33.7 months (95%CI = 28.9-35.6). The median PFS values of the 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, 5FU/LV, and non-maintenance cohorts were 16.0 (95%CI = 14.3-17.7, 86 events), 13.0 (95%CI = 11.4-14.5, 56 events), 14.0 (95%CI = 8.1-20.0, 8 events), and 10.1 months (95%CI = 9.0-11.2, 136 events), respectively (p < 0.001). The median OS values were 39.6 (95%CI = 31.5-47.7, 43 events), 36.1 (95%CI = 31.6-40.7, 36 events), 39.5 (95%CI = 28.2-50.8, 4 events), and 25.1 months (95%CI = 22.6-27.6, 99 events), respectively (p < 0.001). After adjusting for key covariates, a statistically significant improvement in PFS in favor of 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.44-0.77, p < 0.001) and anti-EGFR (HR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.51-0.98, p = 0.039) compared to the non-maintenance cohort was found. Compared to the non-maintenance cohort, OS was improved by 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38-0.81, p = 0.002) and, with marginal significance, by anti-EGFR (HR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.51-0.98, p = 0.051). No difference was found in ORR. Any grade non-hematological and hematological events were generally higher in the non-maintenance compared to the maintenance cohorts. CONCLUSION: Among the treatment strategies following an anti-EGFR-based doublet first-line induction regimen in patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in a "real-life" setting, 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR resulted the most adopted, effective, and relatively safe regimen.

Clinicians' Attitude to Doublet Plus Anti-EGFR Versus Triplet Plus Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment in Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter, "Real-Life", Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Doublets plus antiepidermal growth factor receptors monoclonal antibodies (EGFRi) are widely considered the preferable first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), resulting superior in terms of activity and efficacy compared to doublets plus bevacizumab. However, data comparing doublet plus EGFRi and triplet plus bevacizumab are lacking, and the relative benefit of an intensive regimen plus an antiangiogenic backbone in this population is debated. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude to triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi as first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in clinical practice at 22 Oncology Units from March 2012 to October 2020. A random case-control matching was performed to compare activity (ORR), and effectiveness (PFS, OS, secondary resection rate of metastases with curative intent) between triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi, on the basis of ECOG-PS, age, gender, and burden of disease. RESULTS: A total of 718 patients were consecutively treated with doublet-EGFRi (686, 95.5%) or triplet-bevacizumab (32, 4.5%). After case-control matching, median PFS was 13.6 (95% CI, 8.9-31.7) and 16.1 (95% CI, 12.1-36.8) months (P= .621), while median OS was 30.2 (95% CI, 14.4-69.5) and 38.1 (95% CI, 33.1-101.1) months (P= .0283) in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. The ORR was 65.6% and 90.6% (P= .016), while the secondary resection rate was 18.8% and 46.9% (P= .016), in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. Triplet-bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of G3/G4 neutropenia (25.0% vs. 12.5%, P= .041). CONCLUSION: Although a doublet-EGFRi remains the recommended upfront regimen in patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, our real life data suggest a triplet-bevacizumab might be at least equally active and effective in properly selected cases.

Bone recurrence in early breast cancer patients: The paradox of aromatase inhibitors induced bone resorption.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increase in chances of cure for early breast cancer (EBC) patients, approximately 20-45% of them will experience a disease recurrence, particularly bone metastases in 60-80% of cases, which occur more frequently in luminal subtypes. Endocrine therapy (ET) has always been the milestone of adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive EBC patients, leading to indubitable reduction of disease recurrence risk. However, adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AIs) therapy may promote a progressive decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), which can lead to osteoporosis. The increased bone resorption associated with osteoporosis may provide fertile soil for cancer growth and accelerate the development of bone metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-institution cohort study, we performed a retrospective analysis of "luminal-like" EBC patients who experienced bone recurrence after a subsequent disease free interval. The aim of the study was to evaluate the median time to skeletal recurrence (TSkR). RESULTS: 143 patients experienced bone recurrence. Median TSkR was 54 months (95%CI: 45-65). Among patients who received adjuvant AIs median TSkR was 35 months (95%CI: 25-54), while among patients who did not was 61 months (95%CI: 50-80) (HR = 1.45 [95%CI: 0.97-2.17], p = 0.0644). After adjusting for TNM stage (AJCC 8th edition), adjuvant AIs treatment was significantly related to a shorter TSkR (HR = 1.60 [95%CI: 1.06-2.42], p = 0.0244). Adjuvant Tamoxifen, adjuvant AIs/Tamoxifen and no-treatment did not revealed to be associated to TSkR. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of EBC patients with bone recurrence, AIs treatment seems to be related to a shorter TSkR. AIs-induced bone resorption might represent the underlying mechanism.

Knowledge and attitudes of Italian medical oncologists and palliative care physicians toward medical use of cannabis in cancer care: a national survey.

PURPOSE: Despite advances in supportive care, cancer-related symptoms tend to be persistent regardless of cancer type, stage of disease, or treatment received. There is an increasing prescription for complementary and alternative medicines, such as medical cannabis (MC). Knowledge and attitudes of Italian medical oncologists and palliative care physicians toward medical cannabis in cancer care remain unknown. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the knowledge and attitude toward MC prescription among cancer care professionals in Italy. All invited participants received an email with the electronic questionnaire accessible through a direct link. RESULTS: Among the 2616 members who received the invitation, 475 replied to the questionnaire and were considered for the survey analysis. The most prescribed formulations among those available in Italy were cannabis FM2. The most frequent clinical indications for the use of MC were pain, gastrointestinal, and mood disorders. Only 9 responders reported MC-related side effects like anxiety insomnia and muscle spasms. The question regarding the normative references for MC prescription and use in Italy had conflicting results: only 14% indicated the exact legislative reference. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights a significant discrepancy between personal attitudes, prescription levels, and actual knowledge on MC. This represent a critical issue that should be systemically faced, building educational programs and national guidelines that sublimate personal physicians' beliefs and predispositions, resulting in a robust science-based MC practice. Only through coordinated interventions on science and health policy of MC, there will be success of safety and efficacy, ensuring the best knowledge for the best outcomes.

PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors during late stages of life: an ad-hoc analysis from a large multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: The favourable safety profile and the increasing confidence with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might have boosted their prescription in frail patients with short life expectancies, who usually are not treated with standard chemotherapy. METHODS: The present analysis aims to describe clinicians' attitudes towards ICIs administration during late stages of life within a multicenter cohort of advanced cancer patients treated with single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors in Italy. RESULTS: Overall, 1149 patients with advanced cancer who received single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors were screened. The final study population consisted of 567 deceased patients. 166 patients (29.3%) had received ICIs within 30 days of death; among them there was a significantly higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (28.3% vs 11.5%, p < 0.0001) and with a higher burden of disease (69.3% vs 59.4%, p = 0.0266). In total, 35 patients (6.2%) started ICIs within 30 days of death; among them there was a higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (45.7% vs 14.5%, p < 0.0001) and with a higher burden of disease (82.9% vs 60.9%, p = 0.0266). Primary tumors were significantly different across subgroups (p = 0.0172), with a higher prevalence of NSCLC patients (80% vs 60.9%) among those who started ICIs within 30 days of death. Lastly, 123 patients (21.7%) started ICIs within 3 months of death. Similarly, within this subgroup there was a higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (29.3% vs 12.8%, p < 0.0001), with a higher burden of disease (74.0% vs 59.0%, p = 0.0025) and with NSCLC (74.0% vs 58.8%, p = 0.0236). CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed a trend toward an increasing ICIs prescription in frail patients, during the late stages of life. Caution should be exercised when evaluating an ICI treatment for patients with a poor PS and a high burden of disease.