Next-Generation Sequencing of Circulating Tumor DNA Can Optimize Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer after Progression on anti-EGFR Therapy: Time to Rethink Our Approach.

BACKGROUND: Management of Ras wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC) patients upon disease progression after the successful use of targeted treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies and backbone chemotherapy remains a clinical challenge. SUMMARY: Development of treatment resistance with prevalence of preexisting RAS mutated clones, RAS mutation conversion, truncation of extracellular receptor domains as well as HER2 and MET amplification are molecular events that can be difficult to follow without the use of sophisticated laboratory techniques. The clinical hurdle of re-biopsy and tumor heterogeneity can be overcome by the implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and identify druggable mutations or recovery of RAS-wildness. In this opinion paper, we summarize with critical thinking the clinical approach to be followed after the failure of first-line treatment in Ras wild-type CRC tumors with the use of NGS. Rechallenge with anti-EGFR inhibitors, in case of persistent or recovery of RAS-wildness, and targeted approach of specific mutations (BRAF inhibitors), amplifications (anti-Her2 treatment), or fusion proteins (NTRK inhibitors) can by guided by the use of NGS. The use of NGS platforms for serial analysis of ctDNA is an important step to better understand the molecular landscape of metastatic CRC and guide clinical decisions. KEY MESSAGES: NGS should be considered a mainstay in clinical practice for the management of CRC patients and health authorities should consider reimbursing its use in the appropriate clinical settings.

COVID-19 Vaccinations: Summary Guidance for Cancer Patients in 28 Languages: Breaking Barriers to Cancer Patient Information.

BACKGROUND: Covid-19 vaccination has started in the majority of the countries at the global level. Cancer patients are at high risk for infection, serious illness, and death from COVID-19 and need vaccination guidance and support. Guidance availability in the English language only is a major limit for recommendations' delivery and their application in the world's population and generates information inequalities across the different populations. METHODS: Most of the available COVID-19 vaccination guidance for cancer patients was screened and scrutinized by the European Cancer Patients Coalition (ECPC) and an international oncology panel of 52 physicians from 33 countries. RESULTS: A summary guidance was developed and provided in 28 languages in order to reach more than 70 percent of the global population. CONCLUSION: Language barrier and e-guidance availability in the native language are the most important barriers when communicating with patients. E-guidance availability in various native languages should be considered a major priority by international medical and health organizations that are communicating with patients at the global level.

Synthesis of Recommendations From 25 Countries and 31 Oncology Societies: How to Navigate Through Covid-19 Labyrinth.

INTRODUCTION: Pandemic COVID-19 is an unexpected challenge for the oncological community, indicating potential detrimental effects on cancer patients. Our aim was to summarize the converging key points providing a general guidance in order to support decision making, pertaining to the oncologic care in the middle of a global outbreak. METHODS: We did an international online search in twenty five countries that have managed a surge in cancer patient numbers. We collected the recommendations from thirty one medical oncology societies. RESULTS: By synthesizing guidelines for a) oncology service delivery adjustments, b) general and specific treatment adaptations, and c) discrepancies from guidelines comparison, we present a clinical synopsis with the forty more crucial statements. A Covid-19 risk stratification base was also created in order to obtain a quick, objective patient assessment and a risk-benefit evaluation on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: In an attempt to face these complex needs and due to limited understanding of COVID-19, a variability of recommendations based on general epidemiological and infectious disease principles rather than definite cancer-related evidence has evolved. Additionally, the absence of an effective treatment or vaccine requires the development of cancer management guidance, capitalizing on comprehensive COVID-19 oncology experience globally.

Behind the numbers and the panic of a viral pandemic: fixed restrictive oncology guidance may jeopardize patients' survival.

To protect cancer patients from COVID-19 exposure, prioritization strategies are being implemented at global level. Measures include use of tele-health services, deferring elective surgeries, delaying non life-saving therapies, interrupting maintenance and supportive care regimens and suspending screening and regular follow-up visits. Nonetheless, the risk of infection may not always outweigh oncology treatment benefit. Lives of most oncology patients depend on their ability to receive medical, surgical and radiotherapy care. Postponing screening, follow-up and radical surgeries increase patients' risk of developing metastatic disease. A viral pandemic lasts long time and exhibits seasonal and geographical variations. Though vaccines will be available only in the 2021, a global, aggressive, all-embracing and protracted slowdown of oncologic activities will severely jeopardize patients' outcomes. A present international oncologists' panel, ECPC and FAVO, strongly suggest that Hospital measures in a specific geographical area/Nation should be in line with the local epidemic, and restrictions adopted should be adapted and stratified over time.

Italian Survey on adjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (ISA).

BACKGROUND: A recent pooled analysis of randomized trials indicated significant improvement in overall survival from cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), depending on disease stage (only in stages II and III) and PS (≤ 1). Post-operative radiotherapy (RT) is optional for pN2 tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate opinions and daily clinical practice of Italian Oncologists about adjuvant treatment of NSCLC, a 46-item questionnaire was delivered via e-mail. RESULTS: Seventy-eight physicians from 68 Centers (out of 98 contacted) returned their questionnaire. Seventy-four, 86, 94, and 78% of them give the indication for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IIIB disease, respectively and 14% in stage IB disease. Stage, PS, and age are taken into consideration evaluating adjuvant approach by 97, 95 and 73%, respectively. Cisplatin-vinorelbine (64%) and cisplatin-gemcitabine (33%), for 4 cycles (81%), are the preferred regimens, while 32% use different regimens. Ninety-two percent indicate RT in pN2 disease and/or positive resection margins. Real Number of patients Needed to Treat (NNT) is probably not completely known/understood and/or used by physicians. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial adherence between clinical daily practice in Italy and scientific progresses is described in this paper, even with some discordances regarding the most appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.

Oxycodone controlled-release as first-choice therapy for moderate-to-severe cancer pain in Italian patients: results of an open-label, multicentre, observational study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer pain affects patients at all stages of the disease and there are clear guidelines for its management. Morphine is considered the first-choice strong opioid in the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain; however, numerous studies have shown that oxycodone controlled-release (CR) has a similar efficacy and safety profile. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone CR as a first-line strong opioid for the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain in Italian cancer patients. METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, multicentre, observational trial carried out at 15 locations across Italy. Patients with a referral for cancer-related pain of > or =5 on a 10-point numerical rating scale were enrolled. Patients were treated with oral oxycodone CR and monitored for 21 days. Dosage was individualized for each patient and up-titrated until effective pain control was achieved. Pain, adverse events and quality-of-life scores were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: 390 patients (174 females and 216 males) with a mean age of 66 +/- 11 years were evaluated. The average daily dose ranged from 22.84 on day 1 to 40 mg/day on day 21. Pain intensity (assessed on a 10-point numerical rating scale) decreased significantly within 1 day of treatment commencement (p = 0.00001) and continued to decrease throughout the study period (from a mean 7.22 at baseline to a mean 2.11 points on day 21). Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and consisted of common opioid-related events. Ten patients (2.6%) discontinued the study because of adverse events and four (1%) because of uncontrolled pain. All aspects of activities of daily life assessed were improved by study end. CONCLUSIONS: Oxycodone CR is efficacious and well tolerated as a first-line strong opioid for the treatment of moderate-to-severe cancer-related pain in Italian patients.

Screening Evaluation System--Europe (SESy_Europe) met skin cancer screening.

Skin tumors are the most frequent malignancies in the white population worldwide and have reached the proportion of an epidemic disease. Since non-melanocytic skin cancers can be cured when timely detected, given that still malignant melanoma may have good prognosis if early diagnosed, and considering the key role of primary care in cancer screening advising and implementation, the international PACMeR study group (trial_01.3) adjourned SESy_Europe database in a version comprehensive of skin-malignancies screening indexing. The novel database provides standardized pre-codified translations of 2,331 parameters in eight languages (English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Romanian, Spanish and Turkish) and records the time elapsed from last skin examination, cause and frequency of skins examinations and stratifies skin cancer risk patterns by a systematic registering of risk factors. A comprehensive indexing of skin cancer screening practices among European countries may in fact turn helpful in programming future health policy and tailoring interventions.

Old habits die hard: chest radiography for screening purposes in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the use of chest radiography for screening changes over time. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, ISI, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and handsearching of selected journals. REVIEW METHODS: We evaluated whether the proportion of primary care physicians using chest radiography to screen for (1) malignancy in the general asymptomatic population, (2) malignancy in a high-risk subgroup, (3) any disease in the general population, and (4) any disease in a high-risk subgroup changed over time, using random-effects meta-regression analysis. Adjustments for the availability of national guidelines were also performed. RESULTS: Overall, 10% to 90% of primary care physicians reported using chest x-ray for screening. In unadjusted analyses, the proportion of physicians using chest radiography for cancer screening in the general population tended to increase by 0.9% per year (8 studies, n = 4313). The corresponding annual changes were -2.9% for cancer screening in high-risk subgroups (8 studies, n = 2784) and -0.4% regarding screening for any disease in the population (7 studies, n = 2627). No meta-regressions were run for outcome (4) (only 1 study). In the adjusted analyses, there was a decreasing nonsignificant trend for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite formal recommendations, many physicians still use chest x-ray for screening, with their number decreasing slowly over time. This practice may be harmful because the positive predictive value of chest radiography is low, and further evaluation of false-positive findings might be associated with increased cost and risk from additional diagnostic or therapeutic interventions.