Endometriosis and endometrial cancer: A propensity score-adjusted real-world data study.

Endometriosis is a benign condition characterized by the presence of ectopic endometrial tissue. Our study investigated the effect of endometriosis on the risk of endometrial cancer (EC) and the prognosis of endometriosis-associated EC. In our study, 197,196 patients with endometriosis and without a previous diagnosis of EC were compared with 6,455,556 females encountering health services for examinations, with body mass index (BMI) data, and without endometriosis or EC. A propensity score generated 197,141 matched pairs. In the endometriosis cohort, 875 cases of EC were seen, whereas 558 were in the control group: the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.56 (95% CI 1.40-1.73, p < 0.001). Women with endometriosis were more likely to develop invasive endometrioid (p = 0.005) and clear cell (p < 0.001) EC. There was no difference in overall survival between endometriosis-associated EC and EC without endometriosis. Our epidemiological findings were consistent with the evidence of an association between endometriosis and EC.

Healthcare Costs and Resource Utilisation of Italian Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

This study evaluated the economic burden of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients before and after the availability of an immuno-oncology (IO) regimen as a first-line (1L) treatment. Patients from 2014 to 2020 were categorized according to mutational status into mutation-positive and negative/unknown groups, which were further divided into pre-1L IO and post-1L IO sub-groups depending on the availability of pembrolizumab monotherapy in 1L. Healthcare costs and HCRU for a 1L treatment and overall follow-up were reported as the mean total and per-month cost per patient by groups. Of 644 patients, 125were mutation-positive and 519 negative/unknown (229 and 290 in pre- and post-1L IO, respectively). The mean total per-patient cost in 1L was lower in pre- (EUR 7804) and post-1L IO (EUR 19,301) than the mutation-positive group (EUR 45,247), persisting throughout overall disease follow-up. However, this difference was less when analyzing monthly costs. Therapy costs were the primary driver in 1L, while hospitalization costs rose during follow-up. In both mutation-positive and post-IO 1L groups, the 1L costs represented a significant portion (70.1% and 66.3%, respectively) of the total costs in the overall follow-up. Pembrolizumab introduction increased expenses but improved survival. Higher hospitalisation and emergency room occupation rates during follow-up reflected worsening clinical conditions of the negative/unknown group than the mutation-positive population.

European value-based healthcare benchmarking: moving from theory to practice.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is a conceptual framework to improve the value of healthcare by health, care-process and economic outcomes. Benchmarking should provide useful information to identify best practices and therefore a good instrument to improve quality across healthcare organizations. This paper aims to provide a proof-of-concept of the feasibility of an international VBHC benchmarking in breast cancer, with the ultimate aim of being used to share best practices with a data-driven approach among healthcare organizations from different health systems. METHODS: In the VOICE community-a European healthcare centre cluster intending to address VBHC from theory to practice-information on patient-reported, clinical-related, care-process-related and economic-related outcomes were collected. Patient archetypes were identified using clustering techniques and an indicator set following a modified Delphi was defined. Benchmarking was performed using regression models controlling for patient archetypes and socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety patients from six healthcare centres were included. A set of 50 health, care-process and economic indicators was distilled for benchmarking. Statistically significant differences across sites have been found in most health outcomes, half of the care-process indicators, and all economic indicators, allowing for identifying the best and worst performers. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first international experience providing evidence to be used with VBHC benchmarking intention. Differences in indicators across healthcare centres should be used to identify best practices and improve healthcare quality following further research. Applied methods might help to move forward with VBHC benchmarking in other medical conditions.

Radiotherapy and palliative care outpatient clinic: a new healthcare integrated model in Italy.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of substantial evidence demonstrate that palliative care combined with standard care improves patient, caregiver, and society outcomes, we have developed a new healthcare model called radiotherapy and palliative care (RaP) outpatient clinic were a radiation oncologist and a palliative care physician make a joint evaluation of advanced cancer patients. METHODS: We performed a monocentric observational cohort study on advanced cancer patients referred for evaluation at the RaP outpatient clinic. Measures of quality of care were carried out. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and April 2018, 287 joint evaluations were performed and 260 patients were evaluated. The primary tumor was lung in 31.9% of cases. One hundred fifty (52.3%) evaluations resulted in an indication for palliative radiotherapy treatment. In 57.6% of cases was used a single dose fraction of radiotherapy (8 Gy). All the irradiated cohort completed the palliative radiotherapy treatment. An 8% of irradiated patients received the palliative radiotherapy treatment in the last 30 days of life. A total of 80% of RaP patients received palliative care assistance until the end of life. CONCLUSION: At the first descriptive analysis, the radiotherapy and palliative care model seem to respond to the need of multidisciplinary approach in order to obtain an improvement on quality of care for advanced cancer patients.

Real-World Outcomes and Treatments Patterns Prior and after the Introduction of First-Line Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study provides insights into the treatment use and outcomes of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a real-world setting prior to and after the availability of immuno-oncology (IO) regimens in the first line (1L). METHODS: Metastatic NSCLC patients, who initiated systemic 1L anticancer treatment from 2014 to 2020, were identified from health records. Patients were grouped into Pre-1L IO and Post-1L IO, according to the availability of pembrolizumab 1L monotherapy at the date of initiating 1L systemic anticancer treatment. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes were assessed by the cohort. Overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The most common 1L treatment was platinum-based chemotherapy regimens in both groups (≥46%), followed by single-agent chemotherapy (27.0%) in Pre-1L IO and pembrolizumab (26.0%) in Post-1L IO. Median OS was 6.2 (95% CI 5.5-7.4) in Pre- and 8.9 months (95% CI 7.5-10.6) in Post-1L IO, while rwPFS was 3.7 (95% CI 3.3-4.2) and 4.7 months (95% CI 3.9-5.7), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even if a small proportion of patients received a 1L IO, the data showed an improved survival outcomes in the Post-1L IO group.

Emilia-Romagna Surgical Colorectal Cancer Audit (ESCA): a value-based healthcare retro-prospective study to measure and improve the quality of surgical care in colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Surgery is the main treatment for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Despite huge improvements in perioperative care, colorectal surgery is still associated with a significant burden of postoperative complications and ultimately costs for healthcare organizations. Systematic clinical auditing activity has already proven to be effective in measuring and improving clinical outcomes, and for this reason, we decided to evaluate its impact in a large area of northern Italy. METHODS: The Emilia-Romagna Surgical Colorectal Audit (ESCA) is an observational, multicentric, retro-prospective study, carried out by 7 hospitals located in the Emilia-Romagna region. All consecutive patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer during a 54-month study period will be enrolled. Data regarding baseline conditions, preoperative diagnostic work-up, surgery and postoperative course will be collected in a dedicated case report form. Primary outcomes regard postoperative complications and mortality. Secondary outcomes include each center's adherence to the auditing (enrolment rate) and evaluation of the systematic feedback activity on key performance indicators for the entire perioperative process. CONCLUSION: This protocol describes the methodology of the Emilia-Romagna Surgical Colorectal Audit. The study will provide real-world clinical data essential for benchmarking and feedback activity, to positively impact outcomes and ultimately to improve the entire healthcare process of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study ESCA is registered on the clinicaltrials.gov platform (Identifier: NCT03982641).

Appropriateness and Economic Analysis of Conventional Circulating Biomarkers Assessment in Early Breast Cancer: A Real-World Experience from the E.Pic.A Study.

The risk of relapse for early breast cancer (BC) patients persists even after decades and to date, no specific and sensitive effective circulating biomarker for recurrence prediction has been identified yet. The international guidelines do not recommend the assessment of the serum tumor markers CEA and CA15-3 in the follow-up of asymptomatic early BC patients. In our institute, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", as part of the E.Pic.A study, which was designed to assess the economic appropriateness of integrated care pathways in early BC, the use of CEA and CA15-3 as circulating tumor biomarkers in early BC patients was evaluated in 1502 patients one year after surgery, from 2015 to 2018, with an overall expense of EUR 51,764. A total of EUR 47,780 (92%) was used for execution of circulating tumor markers in early BC patients with stage 0, I and II tumors, neglecting the current guidelines and considered inappropriate by our professional board. We found that no patients with stage I BC experienced relapse in the 365 days after surgery, and in any case examination of the circulating markers CEA and CA15-3 was considered crucial for diagnosis of relapse. Our findings suggest that this inadequacy is a low-value area, supporting the reallocation of economic resources for interventions of a higher value for patients.

How has COVID-19 pandemic changed flu vaccination attitudes among an Italian cancer center healthcare workers?

A retrospective study was conducted among Italian cancer healthcare workers (HCWs) to describe how influenza vaccination attitudes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis was conducted on the last three influenza seasons (2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21). To account for different relationships and proximity with patients, the study population was grouped into three main professional categories: health personnel, administrative staff and technicians. Moreover, to explore the factors affecting the coverage of influenza vaccine, a multinomial regression analysis was performed.Over the years, the influenza vaccination uptake showed a gradual increase across the overall staff, the highest coverage (53.8%) was observed in the season 2020/21, in particular, for health personnel (57.7%). In general, males resulted in more adherent to vaccination campaigns; nevertheless, this gap decreased in the last season. A total of 28.6% workers were always vaccinated throughout the past three seasons, a remarkable 25.2% (mainly young and females) received for the first time the influenza vaccination in 2020/21.In this dramatic health crisis, the attitudes of HCWs toward flu vaccination have changed. The COVID-19 outbreak increased adherence to flu vaccination, reaching the highest coverage in the campaign 2020/21. However, further efforts should be made to achieve greater vaccination coverage.

Chronological age or biological age: What drives the choice of adjuvant treatment in elderly breast cancer patients?

Ma and colleagues reported in their study on 12,004 elderly patients published on Breast J. 2020, that adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with overall survival. Given the toxicities associated with systemic treatments, caution recommendation or omission of chemotherapy may be considered in elderly patient selection especially when comorbidities are present. We agree with authors final conclusions but we want to highlight that to define the adjuvant therapy in BC elderly patients several factors need to be taken into account. One of the main issues is the lack of universal and unique guidelines to define elderly patients. In clinical practice it can be very difficult to estimate the benefit/risk ratio in elderly patients because chemotherapy-induced toxicity is worse than in younger individuals. For these reasons, beyond comorbidities, the choice of adjuvant therapy for elderly patients must also be based both on chronological and biological age. Moreover, the multidisciplinary team for the elderly patient evaluation should include both the geriatrician and the molecular biologist.

The Challenge of Sustainability of High-Cost Oncological Drugs: A Budgeting Model in an Italian Cancer Center.

In Italy, drug expenditure governance is achieved by setting caps based on the percentage increase in hospital spending compared to the previous year. This method is ineffective in identifying issues and opportunities as it does not consider an analysis of the number of treated cases and per capita consumption in local and regional settings. The IRCCS (Scientific hospitalization and treatment institute) Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori" in Meldola, has developed and adopted an effective management model designed to oversee pharmaceutical expenditure, guarantee prescription appropriateness and quality of care to patients. The budget setting follows a structured process which evaluates determining factors of the expenditure such as expected patients calculated according to the epidemiology and to national and regional indications of appropriateness, mean cost per patient calculated on the average period of demonstrated efficacy of the drug and use of drugs with the best cost-effectiveness ratio. Strict monitoring and integrated purchasing processes allow for immediate corrective actions on expenditures, as well as a continuous dialogue with the region in order to guarantee consistent funding of IRST activities. The model, presented in this article is efficient and implements concepts beyond the conventional "silos" approach and national and regional governance tools, in terms of patient centricity.

Incidence and Prevalence Analysis of Non-Small-Cell and Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using Administrative Data.

Treatment of lung cancer depends on the stage of the tumor and the histological type. In recent years, the histological confirmation of lung non-small-cell lung cancer has become crucial since the availability of selective target therapeutic approaches. The aim of the study was to develop a validated procedure to estimate the incidence and prevalence of non-small-cell and small-cell lung cancer from healthcare administrative data. A latent class model for categorical variables was applied. The following observed variables were included in the analysis: ICD-9-CM codes in the Hospital Discharge Registry, ATC codes of medications dispensed present in the Drugs Prescriptions Registry, and the procedure codes in the Outpatient Registry. The proportion of non-small-cell lung cancer diagnoses was estimated to be 85% of the total number of lung cancer on the cohort of incident cases and 89% on the cohort of prevalent cases. External validation on a cohort of 107 patients with a lung cancer diagnosis and histological confirmation showed a sensitivity of 95.6% (95%CI: 89-98.8%) and specificity of 94.1% (95%CI: 71.3-99.9%). The procedure is an easy-to-use tool to design subpopulation-based studies on lung cancer and to better plan resource allocation, which is important since the introduction of new targeted therapies in non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

How to discriminate non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases from an Italian administrative database? A retrospective, secondary data use study for evaluating a novel algorithm performance.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an algorithm developed for identifying non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) candidates among patients with lung cancer with a diagnosis International Classification of Diseases: ninth revision (ICD-9) 162.x code in administrative databases. Algorithm could then be applied for identifying the NSCLC population in order to assess the appropriateness and quality of care of the NSCLC care pathway. DESIGN: Algorithm discrimination capacity to select both NSCLC or non-NSCLC was carried out on a sample for which electronic health record (EHR) diagnosis was available. A bivariate frequency distribution and other measures were used to evaluate algorithm's performances. Associations between possible factors potentially affecting algorithm accuracy were investigated. SETTING: Administrative databases used in a specific geographical area of Emilia-Romagna region, Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Algorithm was carried out on patients aged >18 years, with a lung cancer diagnosis from January to December 2017 and resident in Emilia-Romagna region who have been hospitalised at IRST or in one of the hospitals placed in the Forlì-Cesena area and for which EHR diagnosis data were available. OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall accuracy, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic OR were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 430 patients were identified as lung cancer cases based on ICD-9 diagnosis. Focusing on the total incident cases (n=314), the algorithm had an overall accuracy of 82.8% with a sensitivity of 88.8%. The analysis confirmed a high level of PPV (90.2%), but lower specificity (53.7%) and NPV (50%). Higher length of stay seemed to be associated with a correct classification. Hospitalisation regimen and a supply of antiblastic therapy seemed to increase the level of PPV. CONCLUSION: The algorithm demonstrated a strong validity for identifying NSCLC among patients with lung cancer in hospital administrative databases and can be used to investigate the quality of cancer care for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04676321.

From Distress Screening to Uptake: An Italian Multicenter Study of Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Little consideration is given to the referral and uptake of available supportive services after distress screening. However, identifying the reasons for accepting or refusing help is mandatory for implementing a screening policy. The present study explored the practical usefulness of and potential barriers to the application of distress management. METHODS: 406 cancer patients were consecutively selected and asked to complete the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem Check List (PL). All patients with a DT score ≥6 were invited for a post-DT telephone interview with a trained psychologist. RESULTS: The 112 patients who refused to take part were more often older, retired, at a more advanced stage of illness, and with no previous experience of psychological intervention with respect to those who accepted. Of the 78 patients with a score ≥6 who were referred to the Psycho-Oncology Service, 65.4% accepted the telephone interview. Twenty-two patients rejected the initial invitation immediately for various reasons including logistic difficulties, physical problems, and feeling embarrassed about opening up to a psychologist. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that screening per sé is insufficient to deal with the problem of distress and that more emphasis should be placed on implementing referral and treatment.

How Many Cancer Clinical Trials Can a Clinical Research Coordinator Manage? The Clinical Research Coordinator Workload Assessment Tool.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials (CTs) are now more complex than ever before and require dedicated personnel (clinical research coordinators [CRCs]) to perform regulatory and administrative activities and protocol- and patient-related procedures. We developed a simple tool to measure the workload (WL) of CRCs involved in cancer research and to estimate personnel requirements within a Clinical Trial Center. METHODS: A literature review and 2-month period in which CRCs recorded their activities in a diary provided valuable information that led to the Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori Workload Assessment Tool (IWAT) being divided into three sections: Protocol, On-Treatment Patients, and Follow-Up Patients. Twelve full-time senior CRCs from three sites of the Network measured their monthly WL for 30 months to evaluate IWAT reproducibility and accuracy. RESULTS: The IWAT proved to be a user-friendly tool (3-6 minutes required for each CT), with high reproducibility (interobserver reproducibility ranged from 82% to 100% for each IWAT item). In December 2017, the Network had 185 ongoing CTs, with a median of 2.5 active centers for each CT. On the basis of 448 total IWAT measures by CRCs, the majority of trials were academic (57%) or dealt with advanced disease (77%). The median IWAT WL score for each study was 20.98 ± 22.90 (range, 2-188) and 475 ± 229 (range, 150 [junior staff] - 930 [extreme heavy WL]) for each CRC. On the basis of our experience, a monthly WL score of 500-600 was considered an appropriate value for a full-time CRC. CONCLUSION: The IWAT could prove useful in evaluating CT complexity, estimating appropriate CRC WLs, and defining personnel requirements. Independent validation by other CRCs working in different organizational contexts and in different countries is needed.

The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: cost of radiotherapy in the last month of life in an Italian cancer center.

PURPOSE: Cost evaluation is becoming mandatory to support healthcare sustainability and optimize the decision-making process. This topic is a challenge, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities such as radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present study was to investigate the cost of RT in the last month of life of patients in an Italian cancer center. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on a cancer population (N= 160) who underwent RT or only an RT planning simulation in an end of life (EOL) setting. The cost of RT procedures performed on patients was collected according to treatment status, care setting, and RT technique used. Costs were valued according to the sum of reimbursements relating to all procedures performed and assessed from the perspective of the National Health System. RESULTS: The total cost of RT in the last month of life was €244,774, with an average cost per patient of €1530. Around 7.7% and 30.3% of the total cost was associated with patients who never started RT or who discontinued RT, respectively, while the remaining 62.0% referred to patients who completed treatment. Costs associated with outpatient and inpatient settings represented 54.3% and 38.6% of the total cost, respectively. The higher average cost per patient for the never-started and discontinued groups was correlated with patients who had a poor ECOG Performance Status. CONCLUSION: Improved prognostic accuracy and a better integration between radiotherapy and palliative care units could be a key to a better use of resources and to a reduction in the cost of EOL RT.

The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: economic and organizational impact of subcutaneous formulations for rituximab and trastuzumab in onco-hematology.

Background: This study estimated the economic and organisational impact of using subcutaneous injection (SC) formulations of two monoclonal antibodies (rituximab and trastuzumab) in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and HER2 + breast cancer (BC).Methods: The database of the Unit of Oncology and Haematology of the IRST of Meldola was used. The analysis was structured as follows: i) measurement of the volume of Day-Hospital activity; ii) identification of activities and time to complete the administration; iii) estimate the mean cost of an SC or IV (intravenous infusion); iv) estimate the impact of SC formulations on the volumes of activities provided; v) estimate the social impact of SC or IV formulations.Results: The use of an SC formulation was associated a significant reduction in the time that the patient takes to complete the administration (trastuzumab -1 hr 18 min; rituximab -2 hr 24 min) and in consumption of healthcare resources and related costs for trastuzumab (IV: € 1781; SC: € 1701) and rituximab (IV: € 2116; SC: € 1941).Conclusion: The adoption of the SC formulation for rituximab and trastuzumab can generate a greater value for both the national healthcare system and the patient compared to an IV formulation.

PROTECT Trial: A cluster-randomized study with hydroxychloroquine versus observational support for prevention or early-phase treatment of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Hydroxychloroquine has shown to have antiviral activity in vitro against coronaviruses, specifically SARS-CoV-2. It is believed to block virus infection by increasing endosomal pH required for virus cell fusion and glycosylation of viral surface proteins. In addition to its antiviral activity, hydroxychloroquine has an immune-modulating activity that may synergistically enhance its antiviral effect in vivo, making it a potentially promising drug for the prevention and the cure of SARS-CoV-19. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess whether it can be used safely to treat COVID-19 patients or to prevent infection. The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for (I) the prevention of COVID-19 or related symptoms in SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, such as as household members/contacts of COVID-19 patients and (II) the treatment of early-phase asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a controlled, open label, cluster-randomized, superiority trial with parallel group design. Subjects will be randomized either to receive hydroxychloroquine or to observation (2:1). PARTICIPANTS: SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, including household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients and healthcare professionals (Group 1) or patients with COVID-19 (positive PCR test on a rhinopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2), asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic in home situations who are not undergoing treatment with any anti COVID-19 medication (Group 2), will be enrolled. Paucisymptomatic patients are defined as patients with a low number of mild symptoms. All subjects must be aged ≥18 years, male or female, must be willing and able to give informed consent and must not have any contraindications to take hydroxychloroquine (intolerance or previous toxicity for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, bradycardia or reduction in heart rhythm with arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, retinopathy, congestive heart failure with use of diuretics, favism or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, diabetes type 1, major comorbidities such as advanced chronic kidney disease or dialysis therapy, known history of ventricular arrhythmia, any oncologic/hematologic malignancy, severe neurological and mental illness, current use of medications with known significant drug-drug interactions, and known prolonged QT syndrome or current use of drugs with known QT prolongation). The study is monocentric and will be conducted at Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS. Subjects will be enrolled from a large epidemic region (North-Central Italy). The Public Health Departments of several Italian regions will collaborate by identifying potentially eligible subjects. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The participants will be randomized (2:1 randomization) to receive either hydroxychloroquine (Arm A) or to Observation (Arm B). Hydroxychloroquine will be administered with the following schedule: Group1: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1, followed by a weekly dose of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily on days 8, 15 and 22, for a total of one month of treatment. Group 2: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily for a total of 5-7 days. The comparator in this trial is observation given that currently neither treatment is administered to asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects, nor prophylaxis is available for contacts. Hydroxychloroquine will be shipped to subjects within 24 hours of randomization. Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, only telephonic interviews will be carried out and electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePRO) completed. During treatment, each subject will be contacted every other day for the first week and weekly thereafter (Group 2) or weekly (Group 1) by a study physician to assess early onset of any COVID-19 symptom or any adverse reaction to hydroxychloroquine and to check subject compliance. Furthermore, all subjects will receive periodic ePROs which may be completed through smartphone or tablets to record drug self-administration and onset of any symptom or adverse event. All subjects will be followed up for a total of 6 months by periodic telephonic interviews and ePROs. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint/outcome measure for this trial is: for Group 1, the proportion of subjects who become symptomatic and/or swab-positive in each arm within one month of randomization; for Group 2, the proportion of subjects who become swab-negative in each arm within 14 days of randomization. RANDOMIZATION: All household members and/or contacts of each COVID-19 index case, and the COVID-19 patient himself/herself, fulfilling all inclusion criteria will be grouped into a single cluster and this cluster will be randomized (2:1) to either arm A or arm B. Information on each subject will be recorded in specific data records. Randomization lists will be stratified according to the following factors regarding COVID-19 index cases: 1. COVID-19 risk level on the basis of province of residence (high vs. low/intermediate); 2. Index case is a healthcare professional (yes vs.no) 3. Index case with COVID-19 treatment (yes vs. no) An independent statistician not otherwise involved in the trial will generate the allocation sequence, and COVID-19 response teams will be unaware of the allocation of clusters. Randomization will be performed through an interactive web-based electronic data-capturing database. An Independent Data Monitoring Committee has been established. BLINDING (MASKING): This study is open label. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): For Group 1, a sample size of about 2000 SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects such as household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients will take part in the study. Assuming around 1.5-2.0 asymptomatic household members and/or contacts for each COVID-19 patient, we expect to identify approximately 1000-1300 COVID-19 index cases to be randomized. An interim analysis on efficacy is planned using standard alpha-spending function. For Group 2, sufficient power for primary objective (negative swab within 14 days of randomization) will be reached given a sample size of 300 asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 subjects in home situations not treated for COVID-19 (25%-30% of about 1000-1300 expected index cases). Since up to date reduced evidence about COVID-19 infection epidemiology, the continuous update of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the sample size estimation could be updated after a one third of population will be recruited and eventually modified according to a substantial protocol amendment. An interim analysis at 100 enrolled COVID-19 patients is planned. We have planned a Generalized Estimating Equation analysis, which is more efficient than a cluster level analysis, to take advantage of subject-specific covariates. The above reported sample size analysis is therefore to be considered conservative. TRIAL STATUS: The current version of the PROTECT trial protocol is 'Final version, 15 April 2020'. The study started on 9th May 2020. The first patient was enrolled on 14th May 2020. Recruitment is expected to last through September 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROTECT trial is registered in the EudraCT database (no. 2020-001501-24) and in ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04363827 ), date of registration 24 April 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full PROTECT protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol (Protocol final version, 15th April 2020). The study protocol has been reported in accordance with Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Assessment of Cancer Care Costs in Disease-Specific Cancer Care Pathways.

In view of an efficient use of the Italian National Health Service-funded healthcare resources, a novel data-processing strategy combining information from multiple sources was developed in a regional cancer network of northern Italy. The goal was to calculate the annual overall cost of care pathways of six disease groups in 10,486 patients. The evaluation was conceived as a population-based cost description from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Costs occurred during a defined time period for a cross-section of patients at varying stages of their disease were measured. The total cancer care cost was €81,170,121 (11.1% of total local health expenditure), with a cost per patient of €7741.17 and a cost per capita of €204.62. Surgical, inpatient and day-hospital medical admissions, radiotherapy, drugs, outpatient care, emergency admissions, and home and hospice care accounted for 21.2%, 24.1%, 6.2%, 28.2%, 14.0%, 0.9%, and 5.4% of the total cost, respectively. The highest cost items included drugs (cost per capita, €22.95; 11.2% of total cost) and medical admissions (€14.51; 7.1%) for blood cancer, and surgical (€14.56; 7.1%) and medical admissions (€13.60; 6.6%) for gastrointestinal cancer. The information extracted allows multidisciplinary cancer care teams to be more aware of the costs of their clinical decisions.