RESUMO
Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a benign, locally aggressive primary bone neoplasm that represents 5% of all bone tumours. The principal treatment approach is surgery. Although generally GCTB is considered only a locally aggressive disease, it can metastasise, and lung metastases occur in 1-9% of patients. To date, only the use of denosumab has been approved as medical treatment for GCTB. Even more rarely, GCTB undergoes sarcomatous transformation into a malignant tumour (4% of all GCTB), but history of this malignant transformation is unclear and unpredictable. Considering the rarity of the event, the data in the literature are few. In this review, we summarise published data of GCTB malignant transformation and we analyse three cases of malignant transformation of GCTB, evaluating histopathology, genetics, and radiological aspects. Despite the rarity of this event, we conclude that a strict follow up is recommended to detect early malignant transformation.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Ósseas , Tumor de Células Gigantes do Osso , Neoplasias Ósseas/patologia , Transformação Celular Neoplásica/genética , Denosumab , Tumor de Células Gigantes do Osso/diagnóstico , Tumor de Células Gigantes do Osso/genética , Tumor de Células Gigantes do Osso/patologia , Humanos , Encaminhamento e ConsultaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy has changed the management of patients with various types of malignancies (melanoma, renal, lung, and bladder cancers) but immune checkpoint inhibitors may be associated with several adverse events. Up to 20% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors may develop dermatological immune-related adverse events, mostly rashes and pruritus but rarely even bullous pemphigoid. CASE REPORT: We report a case of an elderly patient with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in therapy with pembrolizumab, 200 mg/body every three weeks. After 26 cycles of therapy, the patient developed widespread itching and then after 28 cycles she developed strained blisters filled with serous fluids on predominantly erythematous skin with suspicious of bullous pemphigoid.Management and outcome: Skin biopsy confirms bullous pemphigoid, so we decided to permanently discontinue therapy with pembrolizumab and the patient is currently on therapy with doxycycline, nicotinamide, and clobetasol propionate with good regression of symptoms and cutaneous lesions. DISCUSSION: In the literature, the first case of bullous pemphigoid induced by pembrolizumab has been described in 2015. On Pubmed, from 2015 to date, we have found 19 cases of bullous pemphigoid during pembrolizumab therapy but only three of them are related to non-small cell lung cancer, adding our patient we reach a total of 20 cases. It could be interesting to investigate if there is a specific relationship between the appearance of itching and the development of bullous pemphigoid.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/efeitos adversos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Imunoterapia/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Penfigoide Bolhoso/induzido quimicamente , Idoso , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/imunologia , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/imunologia , Penfigoide Bolhoso/diagnósticoRESUMO
Therapeutic options for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changed with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immunotherapy is generally well tolerated, but can also be associated with severe adverse events, such as the development of new autoimmune diseases. In patients without a history of autoimmune diseases, psoriasis caused by immunotherapy treatment is rarely described in the literature. The present study describes the case of a 68-year-old man with metastatic NSCLC that started chemoimmunotherapy with carboplatin plus pemetrexed plus pembrolizumab. After two cycles of therapy, the patient developed a G3 maculopapular rash. Biopsy confirmed psoriasis and pembrolizumab treatment was discontinued. At the last follow up, the patient was still on maintenance therapy with pemetrexed alone, which is well tolerated. Psoriasis has rarely been reported as an immune-related adverse event. Although the patient had to stop the immunotherapy treatment, the patient is still exhibiting a response to it. Notably, it has previously been described how skin toxicities are associated with a better outcome. Other studies need to be conducted to identify the risk and predictive factors associated with severe immune adverse events and objective response.
RESUMO
Background: The COVID-19 outbreak had a negative psychological impact on cancer patients. In this study, we analyzed emotional distress and quality of life in patients diagnosed with sarcoma during the first year of the pandemic compared to the previous year. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients with soft tissue, bone sarcoma, and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases diagnosed during the pandemic (COVID group) or the year before (control group) at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. Patients who had undergone a psychological assessment with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Distress Thermometer at diagnosis were included in the final analysis. We analyzed whether there is a difference in the various domains of quality of life between the two groups and whether there are changes over time in each group. Results: We enrolled 114 patients (72 control group; 42 COVID group), affected by soft tissue (64%), bone sarcoma (29%), and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases (7%). We did not observe significant differences in the health-related quality of life domains in the control and COVID groups, except for the financial domain (p = 0.039), with 9.7% vs. 23.8% of patients with a score > 0 in the control and COVID groups, respectively. We observed emotional distress at diagnosis in 48.6% of patients in the control group vs. 69.0% in the COVID group (p = 0.034). In the control group, we observed an improvement in physical function (p = 0.043) and in QoL (p = 0.022), while in the COVID group, we observed a deterioration in role function (p = 0.044) during follow-up. In the COVID group, 22.2% of patients were concerned about COVID-19, 61.1% by tumor, 91.1% stated that the pandemic worsened their subjective perception of cancer, and 19.4% perceived that their quality of care had worsened. Conclusion: We observed a higher level of distress among patients diagnosed during the pandemic compared to the year before, probably due to the increased concern for both infection and cancer, the worsened perception of health status, and the perception of a poorer quality of health care.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2012-2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes. RESULTS: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.
Assuntos
Neoplasias do Colo , Neoplasias Colorretais , Neoplasias Retais , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Uracila/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Colorretais/patologia , Trifluridina/farmacologia , Trifluridina/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias do Colo/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Retais/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
Background: Patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) rarely receive third-line or further treatment. In this context, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two important novel therapeutic choices with statistically significant increases in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control, with different toxicity profiles. This study is a subgroup analysis of our larger retrospective study, already published, whose objective was to assess the outcomes of patients when R and T were given sequentially. Patients and Methods: The study involved thirteen Italian cancer centers on a 10-year retrospective observation (2012-2022). In this subgroup analysis, we focused our attention on the correlation between the first drug treatment duration (<3 months, 3 to <6 months and ≥6 months) and survival outcomes in patients who had received the sequence regorafenib-to-trifluridine/tipiracil, or vice versa. Results: The initial study included 866 patients with mCRC who received sequential T/R, or R/T, or T or R alone. This analysis is focused on evaluating the impact of the duration of the first treatment in the sequence on clinical outcomes (OS, PFS) and includes 146 and 116 patients of the T/R and R/T sequences, respectively. Based on the duration of the first drug treatment, subgroups for the T/R sequence included 27 patients (18.4%) who received T for <3 months, 86 (58.9%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 33 (22.6%) treated for ≥6 months; in the reverse sequence (R as the first drug), subgroups included 18 patients (15.5%) who received their first treatment for <3 months, 62 (53.4%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 35 (31.0%) treated for ≥6 months. In patients who received their first drug treatment for a period of 3 to <6 months, the R/T sequence had a significantly longer median OS (13.7 vs. 10.8 months, p = 0.0069) and a longer median PFS (10.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.0003) than the T/R group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups with first drug treatment durations of <3 months and ≥6 months. Conclusions: Our analysis seems to suggest that the administration of R for a period of 3 to <6 months before that of T can prolong both OS and PFS, as compared to the opposite sequence.
RESUMO
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid reorganization of healthcare activities, leading to reduced access to clinics, interruption of screenings, and treatment schedule modifications in several cancer types. Few data are available on sarcomas. We analyzed COVID-19-related diagnostic delay in a sarcoma referral center in Italy. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled in this study patients with histological diagnosis of soft tissue or bone sarcoma and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases obtained during the first year of the pandemic (Covid group) or the year before (Control group) and followed at the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. The primary endpoint was the time from the first symptom to histological diagnosis. Results: We evaluated 372 patients, 185 of whom were eligible for primary endpoint analysis (92 patients in the Control group and 93 patients in the Covid group). The patients were affected by soft tissue sarcoma in most cases (63.0% and 66.7% in Covid and Control groups, respectively). We observed a diagnostic delay in the Covid group with a median time from the first symptom to the definitive histological diagnosis of 103.00 days (95% CI 92.77-113.23) vs. 90.00 days (95% CI 69.49-110.51) in the Control group (p = 0.024), but not a delay in treatment beginning (151 days, 95% CI 132.9-169.1 vs. 144 days, 95% CI 120.3-167.7, respectively, p = 0.208). No differences in stage at diagnosis were observed (12% vs. 16.5% of patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis in the Covid and Control groups, respectively, p = 0.380). Progression-free survival (p = 0.897) and overall survival (p = 0.725) were comparable in the subgroup of patients affected by soft tissue sarcoma. Conclusions: A delay in sarcoma diagnosis but not in starting treatment has been observed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, no difference in stage at diagnosis or in terms of survival has been observed.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: We previously reported on the immunogenicity and safety of BNT162b2 in a large cohort of patients with cancer after the first and second doses (Di Noia et al., 2021) [1]. Herein, we present result after six months of follow-up. METHODS: This prospective study included patients affected by solid tumors and afferent to our institution who received two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. A cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) was used as control-group. Both cohorts were evaluated for the titer of anti-Spike (S) IgG at prefixed time-points (TPs). Time-point 4 was scheduled at 24-26 weeks after the second dose. RESULTS: In the current analysis, 400 patients and 232 healthcare workers were evaluated. Responders (IgG > 15 AU/mL) in patients group were 86.5% compared with 94.4% among healthcare workers. Also the IgG titer at TP4 was significantly inferior in patients than in healthcare workers (70.81 vs 134.64 AU/ml, p < 0.001). There was a more rapid decline of the antibody level from TP3 to TP4 in patients than in healthcare workers (1.78 vs 1.3 fold). The estimated IgG half-life was significantly shorter for patients (73 days) than in healthcare workers (118 days) as well as the time to reach negative serological status (340 vs 532 days). CONCLUSION: The decline of humoral response to the vaccine observed in patients with solid cancer after six months from the first dose support the urgent need of an early additional dose.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Vacinas , Anticorpos Antivirais , Vacina BNT162 , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
We report a case of an elderly patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, initially treated with abiraterone acetate (1,000 mg/day) combined with LH-RH antagonist, prednisone (10 mg/day), and zoledronic acid to manage bone metastases. In consideration of his poor performance status, radiological and biochemical progression of the disease, we decided to switch abiraterone to enzalutamide (160 mg/day). Due to adverse events, we reduced enzalutamide to a dose of 80 mg/day. Currently, the disease is under control despite the use of a low dose of enzalutamide.
RESUMO
In the case of our patient, the synergic action of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy plus dual anti-HER2 combination allowed a complete disease control. Therapy should be scheduled by considering the two cancers as individual entities. The approach to breast cancer is changing from being considered a singular disease to a multiform one, according to current research focused on biological markers such as HER2, ERs, and PRs, with important implications in clinical, prognostic, and therapeutic features.