Quantitative and Qualitative Radiological Assessment of Sarcopenia and Cachexia in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Sarcopenia, an extremely common condition in cancer patients, is described as a progressive and generalized musculoskeletal disorder that is associated with an increased likelihood of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, physical disability, and mortality. By contrast, cachexia is defined as a syndrome characterized by weight loss with the concomitant loss of muscle and/or fat mass. Cancer cachexia leads to functional impairment, reduced physical performance, and decreased survival, and is often accompanied by cancer progression and reduced response to therapy. The literature states that cancer patients with cachexia or sarcopenia have many more complications than patients without these conditions. The interplay between physiologic sarcopenia and cancer cachexia is, in part, responsible for the complexity of studying wasting disorders in the cancer population, particularly in the geriatric population. For these reasons, a comprehensive assessment of the body composition and physical function of these patients is necessary. There are several modalities adapted to measure skeletal muscle mass, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound (US). The gold standard for the measurement of quantitative and qualitative changes in body composition in patients with cancer is the analysis of tissue density using a CT scan. However, this technique remains poorly implemented in clinical practice because of the use of ionizing radiation. Similarly, DEXA, MRI, and US have been proposed, but their use is limited. In this review, we present and compare the imaging techniques that have been developed so far for the nutritional assessment of cancer patients.

The Role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for Staging and Disease Response Assessment in Localized and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Pancreatic Cancer (PC) has a poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of only 9%. Even after radical surgical procedures, PC patients have poor survival rates, with a high chance of relapse (70-80%). Imaging is involved in all aspects of the clinical management of PC, including detection and characterization of primary tumors and their resectability, assessment of vascular, perineural and lymphatic invasion and detection of distant metastases. The role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) in detecting PC is still controversial, with the international guidelines not recommending its routine use. However, in resectable PC, PET/CT may play a role in assessing PC stage and grade and potential resectability after neoadjuvant treatment. Quantitative image analysis (radiomics) and new PET/CT radiotracers account for future developments in metabolic imaging and may further improve the relevance of this technique in several aspects of PC. In the present review, the current state of the art and future directions of PET/CT in resectable PC are presented.

Triage process for the assessment of coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients with cancer: The ONCOVID prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are considered at high risk for the novel respiratory illness coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). General measures to keep COVID-19-free cancer divisions have been adopted worldwide. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of triage to identify COVID-19 among patients with cancer. METHODS: From March 20 to April 17, 2020, data were collected from patients who were treated or followed at the authors' institution in a prospective clinical trial. The primary endpoint was to estimate the cumulative incidence of COVID-19-positive patients who were identified using a triage process through the aid of medical and patient questionnaires. Based on a diagnostic algorithm, patients with suspect symptoms underwent an infectious disease specialist's evaluation and a COVID-19 swab. Serologic tests were proposed for patients who had symptoms or altered laboratory tests that did not fall into the diagnostic algorithm but were suspicious for COVID-19. RESULTS: Overall, 562 patients were enrolled. Six patients (1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 4 (67%) had the disease detected through telehealth triage, and 2 patients (33%) without suspect symptoms at triage had the disease detected later. Seventy-one patients (13%) had suspect symptoms and/or altered laboratory tests that were not included in the diagnostic algorithm and, of these, 47 patients (73%) underwent testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody: 6 (13%) were positive for IgG (n = 5) or for both IgM and IgG (n = 1), and antibody tests were negative in the remaining 41 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The triage process had a positive effect on the detection of COVID-19 in patients with cancer. Telehealth triage was helpful in detecting suspect patients and to keep a COVID-19-free cancer center. The overall incidence of COVID-19 diagnosis (1%) and antibody positivity (13%) in patients with suspect symptoms was similar to that observed in the general population.

Developing a risk assessment score for patients with cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

The novel coronavirus (CoV) pandemic is a serious threat for patients with cancer, who have an immunocompromised status and are considered at high risk of infections. Data on the novel CoV respiratory disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) in patients with cancer are still limited. Unlike other common viruses, CoVs have not been shown to cause a more severe disease in immunocompromised subjects. Along with direct viral pathogenicity, in some individuals, CoV infection triggers an uncontrolled aberrant inflammatory response, leading to lung tissue damage. In patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors), COVID-19 may therefore represent a serious threat. After a thorough review of the literature on CoV pathogenesis and cancer, we selected several shared features to define which patients can be considered at higher risk of COVID-19. We combined these clinical and laboratory variables, with the aim of developing a score to weight the risk of COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

Renal Function Assessment Gap in Clinical Practice: An Awkward Truth.

INTRODUCTION: An accurate assessment of renal function is needed in the majority of clinical settings. Unfortunately, the most used estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formulas are affected by significant errors in comparison to gold standards methods of measured GFR (mGFR). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to determine the extent of the error of eGFR formulas compared to the mGFR in different specific clinical settings. METHODS: A total retrospectively consecutive cohort of 1,320 patients (pts) enrolled in 2 different European Hospitals (Center 1: 470 pts; Center 2: 850 pts) was collected in order to compare the most common eGFR formulas used by physicians with the most widespread mGFR methods in daily clinical practice (Iohexol Plasma Clearance -Center 1 [mGFR-iox] and Renal Scintigraphy -Center 2 [mGFR-scnt]). The study cohort was composed by urological, oncological, and nephrological pts. The agreement between eGFR and mGFR was evaluated using bias (as median of difference), precision (as interquartile range of difference) accuracy (as P30), and total deviation index. RESULTS: The most accurate eGFR formula in the comparison with gold standard method (Iohexol plasma clearance) in Center 1 was represented by s-creatinine and cystatin C combined Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration-cr-cy, even though the P30 is reduced (84%) under the threshold of 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Similar results were found in Center 2, with a wider discrepancy between mGFR-scnt and eGFR formulas due to the minor accuracy of the nuclear tool in respect to the mGFR-iox. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of accuracy observed for the formulas at lower values of GFR suggests the mandatory use of gold standards methods as Iohexol Plasma Clearance to assess the correct status of renal function for critical cases. The center 2 showed lower levels of agreement between mGFR and eGFR suggesting that the errors are partially accounted for the Renal Scintigraphy technique too. In particular, we suggest the use of mGFR-iox in oncological urological and nephrological pts with an eGFR lower than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2.