Evaluation of COVID-19 impact on DELAYing diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of lung cancer patients in Italy (COVID-DELAY study): fewer cases and higher stages from a real-world scenario.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has disrupted the global health care system since March 2020. Lung cancer (LC) patients (pts) represent a vulnerable population highly affected by the pandemic. This multicenter Italian study aimed to evaluate whether the COVID-19 outbreak had an impact on access to cancer diagnosis and treatment of LC pts compared with pre-pandemic time. METHODS: Consecutive newly diagnosed LC pts referred to 25 Italian Oncology Departments between March and December 2020 were included. Access rate and temporal intervals between date of symptoms onset and diagnostic and therapeutic services were compared with the same period in 2019. Differences between the 2 years were analyzed using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A slight reduction (-6.9%) in newly diagnosed LC cases was observed in 2020 compared with 2019 (1523 versus 1637, P = 0.09). Newly diagnosed LC pts in 2020 were more likely to be diagnosed with stage IV disease (P < 0.01) and to be current smokers (someone who has smoked more than 100 cigarettes, including hand-rolled cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, in their lifetime and has smoked in the last 28 days) (P < 0.01). The drop in terms of new diagnoses was greater in the lockdown period (percentage drop -12% versus -3.2%) compared with the other months included. More LC pts were referred to a low/medium volume hospital in 2020 compared with 2019 (P = 0.01). No differences emerged in terms of interval between symptoms onset and radiological diagnosis (P = 0.94), symptoms onset and cytohistological diagnosis (P = 0.92), symptoms onset and treatment start (P = 0.40), and treatment start and first radiological revaluation (P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Our study pointed out a reduction of new diagnoses with a shift towards higher stage at diagnosis for LC pts in 2020. Despite this, the measures adopted by Italian Oncology Departments ensured the maintenance of the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of LC pts.

Alkaline phosphatase (alp) levels in multiple myeloma and solid cancers with bone lesions: Is there any difference?

INTRODUCTION: Bone involvement in Multiple Myeloma results from increased osteoclast formation and activity that occurs in proximity to myeloma cells. The role of Alkaline Phosphatse (ALP) in this process and the diagnostic significance of plasma levels in patients with MM are unclear. AIM: To compare plasma ALP levels in patients with MM and solid cancers and metastatic lesions to the bone. RESULTS: In this observational retrospective study we enrolled 901 patients were enrolled: 440 patients (49%) with Multiple Myeloma, 461 (51%) with solid cancers. All 901 patients had bone lesions. Among patients with Multiple Myeloma, ALP values were mainly in the range of normality than those observed in patients with solid cancers and bone lesions. This difference is independent of stage, number and type of bone lesions. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that plasma ALP has a different clinical significance in MM than in other neoplasms and could be used as a discriminating marker in presence of bone lesions. In particular, lower or normal values, should suggest further investigations such as urinary and serum electrophoresis, associated with bone marrow aspirate in case of the presence of a monoclonal component, in order to confirm or exclude a MM diagnosis.

Osimertinib beyond disease progression in T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients: a multicenter study of clinicians' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: In most cases, T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients receiving osimertinib developed "non-drugable" progression, as the patients with common EGFR-sensitizing mutations were treated with first-line osimertinib. In both settings, chemotherapy represents the standard treatment and local ablative treatments (LATs) are potential useful options in the case of oligo-progression. METHODS: We conducted a study on "post-progression" (pp) outcomes of T790M EGFR-positive NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib, according to the therapeutic strategy applied: osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs), "switched therapies" or best supportive care only (BSC). RESULTS: 144 consecutive patients were evaluated: 53 (36.8%) did not received post-progression treatments (BSC), while 91 (63.2%) patients received at least 1 subsequent treatment; 50 patients (54.9%) received osimertinib beyond disease progression [19 (20.9%) of them with adjunctive LATs] and 41 (45.1%) a switched therapy. Median ppPFS (progression-free survival) and median ppOS (overall survival) of patients who received osimertinib beyond progression vs. switched therapies were 6.4 months vs. 4.7 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.35-0.92), p = 0.0239] and 11.3 months vs 7.8 months, respectively [HR 0.57 (95% CI 0.33-0.98), p = 0.0446]. Among patients who received osimertinib beyond progression with and without LATs median ppPFS was 6.4 months and 5.7 months, respectively [HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.68-1.18), p = 0.4560], while median ppOS was 20.2 months and 9.9 months, respectively [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.52-1.03), p = 0.0748]. At the univariate analysis, the only factor significantly related to the ppPFS was the therapeutic strategy in favor of osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). Moreover, the only variable which was significantly related to ppOS at the multivariate analysis was osimertinib beyond progression (± LATs). CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed that in clinical practice, in case of "non-druggable" disease progression, maintaining osimertinib beyond progression (with adjunctive LATs) is an effective option.

Bone metastases in biliary cancers: A multicenter retrospective survey.

•Natural history of biliary cancers metastatic to bone•The role of skeletal events in patients with biliary cancer•Biliary cancer and bone metastases: role of bisphosphonates.

Multivariate prognostic factors analysis for second-line chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of second-line chemotherapy (CT) is not established in advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC). We investigated the outcome of aBTC patients treated with second-line CT and devised a prognostic model. METHODS: Baseline clinical and laboratory data of 300 consecutive aBTC patients were collected and association with overall survival (OS) was investigated by multivariable Cox models. RESULTS: The following parameters resulted independently associated with longer OS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (P<0.001; hazard ratio (HR), 0.348; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.215-0.562), CA19.9 lower than median (P=0.013; HR, 0.574; 95% CI 0.370-0.891), progression-free survival after first-line CT ≥ 6 months (P=0.027; HR, 0.633; 95% CI 0.422-0.949) and previous surgery on primary tumour (P=0.027; HR, 0.609; 95% CI 0.392-0.945). We grouped the 249 patients with complete data available into three categories according to the number of fulfilled risk factors: median OS times for good-risk (zero to one factors), intermediate-risk (two factors) and poor-risk (three to four factors) groups were 13.1, 6.6 and 3.7 months, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Easily available clinical and laboratory factors predict prognosis of aBTC patients undergoing second-line CT. This model allows individual patient-risk stratification and may help in treatment decision and trial design.