Immunotherapy Assessment: A New Paradigm for Radiologists.

Immunotherapy denotes an exemplar change in an oncological setting. Despite the effective application of these treatments across a broad range of tumors, only a minority of patients have beneficial effects. The efficacy of immunotherapy is affected by several factors, including human immunity, which is strongly correlated to genetic features, such as intra-tumor heterogeneity. Classic imaging assessment, based on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is useful for conventional treatments, has a limited role in immunotherapy. The reason is due to different patterns of response and/or progression during this kind of treatment which differs from those seen during other treatments, such as the possibility to assess the wide spectrum of immunotherapy-correlated toxic effects (ir-AEs) as soon as possible. In addition, considering the unusual response patterns, the limits of conventional response criteria and the necessity of using related immune-response criteria are clear. Radiomics analysis is a recent field of great interest in a radiological setting and recently it has grown the idea that we could identify patients who will be fit for this treatment or who will develop ir-AEs.

Risk Management Activities in a Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Results of a Prospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to highlight sources of harm that could negatively affect the lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) activities to reduce the level of risk of each factor. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used by a board of multi-health care professionals of the lung cancer MDT to identify the main processes, subprocesses, and risk factors of the multidisciplinary pathway of patients with lung cancer. A semiquantitative matrix was built with a five-point scale for probability of harm (likelihood) and severity of harm (consequences) according to the international risk management standards (ISO 31000-2018). The risk level was calculated by multiplying likelihood × consequences. Mitigation strategies have been identified and applied by the MDT to reduce risks to acceptable levels. RESULTS: Three main processes (outpatient specialist visit, MDT discussion, and MDT program implementation), eight related subprocesses, and 16 risk factors were identified. Four risk factors (25%) were related to outpatient specialist visit, seven (43.75%) to case discussion, and five (31.25%) to program implementation. Overall, two risk factors were assigned a low-risk level (12.5%), 11 a moderate-risk level (68.75%), one (6.25%) a high-risk level, and two (12.5%) a very high-risk level. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the new semiquantitative risk analysis showed a reduction in almost all hazardous situations: two risk factors (12.5%) were given a very low level, six (37.5%) a low level, seven (43.75%) a moderate level, and one (6.25%) a very high level. CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary risk assessment analysis is applicable to MDT activities by using an ad hoc risk matrix: if the hazard is identified and monitored, the risk could be reduced and managed in a short time.

Costs of clinical trials with anticancer biological agents in an Oncologic Italian Cancer Center using the activity-based costing methodology.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the estimated "per patient" total cost for a single Oncologic Italian Cancer Center participating in a multicenter clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents using the activity-based costing (ABC) methodology. METHODOLOGY: Nine randomized phase 3 clinical trials employing biological agents at the National Cancer Institute of Napoli, Italy, were analyzed to indentify "per patient" costs of each trial, according to the ABC methodology. The average consumption of resources for a patient completing the entire planned treatment was estimated for each trial. Through interviews of the personnel (doctors, nurses and technicians) and by analyses of the clinical trials protocols, the main activities of the 9 clinical trials were identified and, for each trial, the complete health care pathway of the patients and the treatment programmes were minutely reconstructed. Drug costs were not included because provided by Sponsors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average costs of the pre-study, treatment, monitoring, follow-up, audit, and administrative activities accounted for 2.357, 4.783, 700, 372, 1.263, and 9 Euro, respectively. The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities, including overhead costs, was 11.379 Euro. Staff costs accounted for € 5.988, while costs of diagnostic test accounted for 3.494 Euro. Clinical trials with immunotherapeutic drugs accounted for higher costs (+601 Euro as oncological staff costs, +1.318 Euro as intermediate services cost and +384 Euro as overheads). CONCLUSIONS: The average total cost estimated for all "per patient" activities of a clinical trial with new anticancer biological agents was 11.379 Euro using the ABC methodology.

Assessment of high-sensitive methods for the detection of EGFR mutations in circulating free tumor DNA from NSCLC patients.

AIM: We assessed the ability of the Therascreen(®) kit (plasma-Therascreen) and of a peptide nucleic acids (PNA)-clamp approach to detect EGFR mutations in plasma-derived circulating-free tumor DNA (cftDNA) from non-small-cell lung cancer patients. MATERIALS & METHODS: cftDNA from 96 patients was analyzed for exon 19 deletions and the p.L858R mutation, using both plasma-Therascreen and PNA-clamp-based assays. RESULTS: None of the 70 EGFR wild-type patients showed EGFR mutations in cftDNA with both techniques (specificity: 100%). In 17/26 EGFR-mutant patients, plasma-Therascreen analysis confirmed the mutation identified in the primary tumor (analytical sensitivity: 65.4%). Similar results were obtained with the PNA-clamp method. CONCLUSION: Both approaches were specific and sensitive for EGFR mutational analysis of cftDNA in non-small-cell lung cancer patients.