Treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors with bone-modifying agents: a web survey of Italian oncologists investigating patterns of practice drug prescription and prevention of side effects.

PURPOSE: Optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors is uncertain in some aspects: the drug choice; the planned treatment duration and long-term therapy; the prevention and management of possible side effects, including renal toxicity, hypocalcaemia, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). METHODS: Italian oncologists were invited to fulfil a 24-question web survey about prescription of BMAs for bone metastases of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors. Prevention and management of side effects were also investigated. RESULTS: Answers of 191 oncologists were collected. BMAs are usually prescribed at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases by 87.0% (breast cancer) and 76.1% (solid tumors except breast and prostate cancers) of oncologists; the decision is more articulated for prostate cancer (endocrine-sensitive versus castration-resistant). The creatinine level (32.3%), the availability of patient venous access (15.8%), and the type of primary neoplasm (13.6%) are the most reported factors involved in choice between bisphosphonates and denosumab. Zoledronic acid every 3 months was considered as a valid alternative to monthly administration by 94% of Italian oncologists. Oncologists reported a good confidence with measures aimed to prevent MRONJ, whereas uncertainness about prevention and management of hypocalcemia was registered. CONCLUSION: Italian oncologists showed a high attitude in prescribing bisphosphonates or denosumab at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases, with a large application of preventive measures of side effects. Further studies are needed to investigate some controversial aspects, such as optimal drug treatment duration and long-term drug schedules.

Autoimmune Encephalitis following Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in a Patient with Metastatic Melanoma in Complete Remission.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer is increasing. Their side effects are mainly due to the triggering of autoimmunity, which are mild or moderate and include skin rash, colitis, hepatitis, endocrine disorders, myositis, interstitial lung disorder, etc., in most cases during the course of therapy. Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is rare in cancer patients treated with ICIs. Fifty patients with ICI-related encephalitis were identified in a recent review. Herein, we report a case of pembrolizumab associated with AE with a favorable short-term prognosis. A 68-year-old man with malignant metastatic melanoma achieved complete remission after pembrolizumab treatment. However, 10 months after pembrolizumab cessation due to grade 3 diarrhea, he developed confusion, an altered mental status, progressive memory loss, and gait disturbance. He was admitted to the neurologic department, and a comprehensive neurological workup, brain magnetic resonance imaging, cerebral fluid analysis, EEG, and blood test allowed the diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. The patient was treated with plasmapheresis, a high dose of intravenous steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulins. The patient improved, and he is now well with a performance status of 1. This case is interesting since the AE developed approximately 10 months after the cessation of immunotherapy, the underlying cancer was in complete remission, and the AE showed a good response after the treatment was performed.

Cancer Treatment Closer to the Patient Reduces Travel Burden, Time Toxicity, and Improves Patient Satisfaction, Results of 546 Consecutive Patients in a Northern Italian District.

Background and Objectives: The distance to cancer facilities may cause disparities by creating barriers to oncologic diagnosis and treatment, and travel burden may cause time and financial toxicity. Materials and Methods: To relieve travel burden, a program to deliver oncologic treatment closer to the patient was initiated in the district of Piacenza (Northern Italy) several years ago. The oncologic activities are performed by oncologists and by nurses who travel from the oncologic ward of the city hospital to territorial centres to provide cancer patient management. This model is called Territorial Oncology Care (TOC): patients are managed near their home, in three territorial hospitals and in a health centre, named "Casa della Salute" (CDS). A retrospective study was performed and the records of patients with cancer managed in the TOC program were analysed. The primary endpoints were the km and time saved, the secondary endpoints: reduction of caregiver need for transport and patient satisfaction. Results: 546 cancer patients managed in the TOC program from 2 January 2021 to 30 June 2022 were included in this study. Primary endpoints: median km to reach the city hospital: 26 (range 11-79 km) median time: 44 min (range 32-116); median km to reach the territorial clinicians in the TOC program: 7 (range 1-35 km), median time: 16 minutes (range 6-54), p < 0.001. Secondary endpoints: 64.8% of patients who needed a caregiver for the city hospital could travel alone in the TOC program and 99.63% of patients were satisfied. Conclusions: The results of this retrospective study highlight the possibility of treating cancer patients near their residence, reducing travel burden and saving time.

FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine Plus Nab-paclitaxel as First Line Treatment in Pancreatic Cancer: A Real-World Comparison.

Background/Aim: Advanced pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis and a 5-year survival rate <5%; thus, treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease is challenging. Current guidelines recommend either gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) or FOLFIRINOX (FOL) as first-line treatment. Data on both efficacy and toxicity of FOL versus GnP in metastatic cancer are limited. This study aimed to compare the two chemotherapy regimens in terms of efficacy and toxicity in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: This retrospective propensity score matching study reviewed the medical records of 123 consecutive patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who received either GnP or FOL between March 2013 and January 2019 in Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza. Results: Fifty patients (40.65%) received FOL, administered in an attenuated dose, and seventy-three patients (59.35%) received GnP. After a propensity matching score, 100 patients were retrospectively evaluated. In the final matched cohort, there was no difference in neoadjuvant therapy, radiotherapy, and surgery performed before the first-line therapy between the two groups. Progression-free survival and overall survival were comparable between the two groups and no difference was found in the percentage of toxicity. Conclusion: There was no difference in outcomes between patients who received FOL and those who received GnP. Unexpectedly, no greater FOL-related toxicity was found, probably due to the dose reduction.

Humoral Response and Safety after a Fourth Dose of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 Vaccine in Cancer Patients Undergoing Active Treatment-Results of a Prospective Observational Study.

Only a few studies have been carried out on the efficacy and safety of a fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer. In this prospective observational study, we aimed to assess the serological response and safety of the fourth booster shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine in 79 cancer patients, vaccinated between 1 March and 25 August 2022, under systemic anticancer therapy. The primary endpoint was to assess the increase in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; secondary endpoints were the vaccine safety and side effects. Consequently, 40 patients (50.63%) revealed the maximum detection values in their IgG titers before the fourth dose of the vaccine, while 39 patients (49.37%) did not. Primary endpoint: Of 39 patients, 36 (92.31%) showed a significant increase in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers, and 32 of them (82.05%) reached the maximum titration values. Secondary endpoints: The most common adverse events were mild in severity and included injection site pain, erythema and tiredness. The majority of the adverse reactions reported were grade 1 and no grade 3 and 4 reactions were detected. Our data provide evidence that a fourth dose of the BNT162b2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is effective and safe in patients with solid tumors in active anticancer treatment.

Reducing the burden of travel and environmental impact through decentralization of cancer care.

Life expectancy, quality of life and satisfaction of oncologic patients highly depend on access to adequate specialized services, that consider their conditions in a holistic way. The present study aims to evaluate the introduction of oncology services in an outpatient setting in a mountain village in Northern Italy. The initiative is evaluated using the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic and environmental) as dimensions that are often overlooked by healthcare policy makers. Using micro data on 18,625 interventions, we estimate the number of kilometers saved by patients (reduction of "travel burden" as indicator of social sustainability), the additional travel costs for the NHS (indicator of economic sustainability) and the implied reduction of CO2 emissions (indicator of environmental sustainability). Over the period July 2016-2021, the decentralized health center delivered 2,292 interventions saving 218,566 km for a corresponding value of €131,140. The additional costs for the NHS was €26,152. The reduction of CO2 emissions was 32.37 Tons (€5,989). Overall, the socio-economic benefit of reducing travel of care for the patients residing in this remote valley was €110,976. This study adds original understanding of the benefits of decentralizing oncologic care and shows its operational feasibility conditions. Given the modest number of similar projects, it provides evidence to policy makers and, especially, managers who are faced with the challenge to implement the decentralization of specialized services.

Can contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy increase survival in BRCA-related breast cancer? Results from the Italian MUTina study.

INTRODUCTION: In the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy, a unique Hub and Spoke model was adopted to recognize BRCA-related breast cancer (BC) patients. Characteristics and outcomes of tumors identified by this model will be presented. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study involved patients diagnosed with BRCA-related BC identified in the Emilia-Romagna region between January 2000 and December 2013. Seven provinces collected data on patient and tumor characteristics; clinical and gene testing information were also registered. Comparisons between BRCA1 and BRCA2 BC were performed. To balance different variants to identify significant predictors of survival, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis on Cox regression was conducted. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2013, 284 BRCA-related BC were registered (171 BRCA1, 110 BRCA2, and 3 BRCA1 and BRCA2). BRCA1 were diagnosed at an earlier stage compared to BRCA2 (50.1 % vs 30 %, respectively, in stage I, P = 0.0015). BRCA2 patients underwent more up-front surgery (85 % vs. 74.9 %, P = 0.049) and less chemotherapy (69.1 % vs 88.9 %, P = 0.004) than BRCA1 patients. At 11.8 years median follow-up, BRCA1 patients developed more second contralateral BC (P = 0.09), while BRCA2 had more visceral relapses (P = 0.013). No differences in overall survival (OS) between BRCA1 and BRCA2 patients (P = 0.07) were found. An advantage in OS was independently seen for patients who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (P = 0.0001) and oophorectomy (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, adopting a homogeneous regional framework provides important information about prevention and treatment strategies of BRCA-related BC and suggests using maximal surgery to improve OS.

Corrigendum to "Comparison of baseline patient characteristics in Italian oncology drug monitoring registries and clinical trials: a real-world cross-sectional study" [The Lancet Regional Health - Europe 41 (2024) 100912].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100912.].

Corrigendum to "Comparison of baseline patient characteristics in Italian oncology drug monitoring registries and clinical trials: a real-world cross-sectional study" [The Lancet Regional Health - Europe 41 (2024) 100912].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100912.].

Comparison of baseline patient characteristics in Italian oncology drug monitoring registries and clinical trials: a real-world cross-sectional study.

Background: Generalizability of registrative clinical trials to real-world clinical practice is influenced by comparability of patients in the two settings. We compared characteristics of cancer patients in registrative trials with real-world clinical practice in Italy. Methods: Data on age, sex and performance status (PS) were derived from web-based monitoring registries developed by Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and corresponding registrative trials reported in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPAR) of European Medicines Agency (EMA). Weighted means were calculated in registries and trials and differences were described. Multivariate analysis was performed using Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis. Findings: From January, 2013 to April, 2023, 419,461 unique pairs of patients and therapeutic indications were recorded in 129 AIFA registries. Within 140 related trials, 87,452 patients had been enrolled. Median age and rate of elderly (≥65 years old) patients were higher in monitoring registries than in clinical trials [mean difference of median age 5.3 years, p < 0.001; mean difference of elderly rate 17.17% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48)]. Overall, rate of female patients was not different between registries and trials [mean difference -0.55% (95% CI -1.06, -0.05)]. Mean rate of patients with deteriorated PS was low both in trials (3.1%) and in registries (4.3%) with a mean difference of 1.27% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48). Two clusters were identified with multivariate analysis: one including more registries (higher median age and elderly rate, lower female rate, higher rate of deteriorated patients), the other more trials (lower median age and elderly rate, higher female rate, lower rate of deteriorated patients). Interpretation: This study supports that cancer patients enrolled in trials do only partially represent those who have been treated in Italy in clinical practice. Inclusiveness of registrative trials should be increased to ensure generalizability of results to real-world population. Funding: Partially supported by Italian Ministry of Health.

Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) in breast cancer patients: The prospective observational multicenter VIP study.

Patients' self-reporting is increasingly considered essential to measure quality-of-life and treatment-related side-effects. However, if multiple patient-reported instruments are used, redundancy may represent an overload for patients. Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are a tool allowing direct patients' reporting of side-effects. We tested psychometric properties of a selected list of PRO-CTCAE items, in a cohort of 303 breast cancer patients, using validated instruments for quality of life assessment as anchors. The analysis of convergent validity with HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and EORTC BR-23 sub-scales, and the analysis of responsiveness with the PGIC (Patients Global Impression of Change) score supported that a selected list of PRO-CTCAE symptoms might represent a standardized, agile tool for both research and practice settings to reduce patient burden without missing relevant information on patient perceptions. Among patients using digital devices, those with a higher education levels required shorter time to fulfil questionnaires. In conclusion, a selected list of PRO-CTCAE items can be considered as a standardized, agile tool for capturing crucial domains of side-effects and quality of life in patients with breast cancer. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04416672).