Search

Background: Oxidative stress has emerged as a key contributor to numerous NCDs (non-communicable diseases), including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and diabetes. This study aims to explore the potential of targeted interventions to mitigate oxidative stress as part of a primary prevention strategy. Methods: The study included 32 healthy participants (11 men, 21 women) aged 45–65 who completed both the initial and follow-up assessments of the Healthy Days Initiative, a community-based wellness program organized by the non-profit Associazione O.R.A. ETS. Through blood analysis, vital sign assessment, lifestyle questionnaires, and individualized recommendations, participants received guidance on improving their health and reducing disease risk. The initiative also offered the opportunity for participants to consume a flavonoid supplement containing quercitrin, rutin, and hesperidin, with the goal of reducing oxidative stress. Participants who opted for supplementation were instructed to take 1–2 tablets daily for two weeks. Data collected included demographic information, anthropometric measurements, vital signs, dietary and lifestyle habits, medical history, WHO-5 Well-Being Index scores, and blood parameters. Results: Significant reductions were observed in glucose levels (from 82 to 74.5 mg/dL), reactive oxygen metabolites (d-ROMs) (from 394.5 to 365.5 U.CARR), and systolic blood pressure (from 133 to 122 mmHg) after the two-week flavonoid intervention. Most participants (26/31) reported no side effects, and the majority (30/31) expressed a willingness to continue using a product combination of quercitrin, rutin, and hesperidin or a similar product long-term. Conclusions: While limited in scope and duration, the PREVES-FLAVON study contributes valuable insights to the growing body of evidence suggesting that flavonoid supplementation may play a significant role in reducing risk factors associated with NCDs in primary prevention settings. By targeting novel risk factors such as oxidative stress, this intervention holds promise for mitigating the global burden of NCDs and promoting healthy aging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of instant messaging in cancer care, particularly its potential to enhance doctor-patient communication. Topics discussed include the effectiveness of text messaging for preventive health behaviors, the impact of bidirectional communication on patient outcomes, and the challenges of continuous availability for healthcare professionals.

Introduction: Approximately a third of cancer-related deaths are attributable to modifiable factors. Methods: As a pilot experience, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in 8,000 citizens residing in four different municipalities of the Salerno province (Sarno, Pagani, San Valentino Torio, and San Marzano sul Sarno) to investigate key lifestyle and dietary habits. Results: A total of 703 of participants (8.7%) reported a history of malignancy. Alarmingly, 30.5% declared to be a current smoker, while 78.8% did not report any kind of physical activity. Encouragingly, 64.5% declared to be abstemious, and 83.0% declared to consume fruit and vegetables every day, while 4.7% and 31.9% declared not to consume meat and fried food, respectively, at any time. Never-consumers of fruit and vegetables had higher odds of having a history of colorectal cancer (OR = 5.01; 95% CI = 1.46–17.15; p = 0.01). Conclusions: The PREVES study has served to prove the validity of an operational model allowing to integrate hospital and territorial healthcare services, which we expect to be applied at a larger scale. Key information regarding dietary and lifestyle habits of the investigated population was obtained. Larger studies conducted using more accurate approaches to investigate diet, such as 24-h recalls and food frequency questionnaires, are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COICA study is an ambispective, observational trial that was conceived to assess the clinical course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in cancer patients. A recently published, population-based, case-control study reported a reduced vaccine efficacy at 3–6 months in cancer patients compared to individuals without cancer. Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outcomes in cancer patients and analyze differences in SARS-CoV-2 outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Methods: Descriptive statistics and frequency counts were used to summarize characteristics of the study population. χ2 test and the log-rank test were used to compare outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: A total of 141 cancer patients (80 males, 61 females) were recruited at two participating Institutions from March 2020 until April 2022 and observed from the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test to the time of negativization or death. Approximately 35% of patients had been vaccinated at the time of infection with 2 (16 patients) or 3 (33 patients) vaccine doses. Vaccinated patients consistently and significantly showed improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to unvaccinated patients, with CT-diagnosed pneumonia, hospitalization, O2 therapy, and death reported in 0% versus 48.6%, 2.0% versus 15.2%, 0% versus 14.1%, and 0% versus 7.6%, respectively, of assessable patients (p < 0.05). Vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients showed a significantly shorter time to negativization, with a median (95% confidence interval) time of 12 (10–14) versus 20 (17–23) days, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Vaccination consistently improved all COVID-19 outcomes. No death was recorded among vaccinated patients. Additional research is especially warranted to establish optimal timing and patient selection for administration of the fourth vaccination dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cancer aggravates COVID-19 prognosis. Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly frequent in cancer patients, who need to attend hospitals regularly. Since March 2020, all cancer patients having access to the Oncology Unit at the "Andrea Tortora" Hospital (Pagani, Salerno – referred to as "the Hospital") as inpatients or outpatients receiving intravenous therapy have been screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab. The ongoing COICA (COVID-19 infection in cancer patients) study is an ambispective, multicenter, observational study designed to assess the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. The aim of the study presented here was to explore potential differences in COVID-19-related outcomes among screening-detected versus nonscreening-detected SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Methods: The COICA study enrolled cancer patients who had received any anticancer systemic therapy within 3 months since the day they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR. The target accrual is 128 patients, and the study was approved by the competent Ethics Committee. Only the subgroup of patients enrolled at the Hospital was considered in this unplanned interim analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association of screening-based versus nonscreening-based diagnosis. Results: Since March 15, 2020, until August 15, 2021, a total of 931 outpatients and 230 inpatients were repeatedly screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR nasal swab at the Hospital. Among these, 71 asymptomatic patients were positive on routine screening and 5 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 outside the institutional screening. Seven patients died because of COVID-19. At univariate analysis, nonscreening- versus screening-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of O2 therapy (OR = 16.2; 95% CI = 2.2–117.1; p = 0.006), hospital admission (OR = 31.5; 95% CI = 3.1–317.8; p = 0.003), admission to ICU (OR = 23.0; 95% CI = 2.4–223.8; p = 0.007), and death (OR = 8.8; 95% CI = 1.2–65.5; p = 0.034). Conclusion: Routine screening with RT-PCR may represent a feasible and effective strategy in reducing viral circulation and possibly COVID-19 mortality in patients with active cancer having repeated access to hospital facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer worldwide. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, a novel class of immunotherapy drugs that restore natural antitumoral immune activity, have been applied to improve the overall survival and to reduce the morbidity and mortality of bladder cancer both in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. However, some patients do not respond to checkpoint inhibitors. Consequently, the capability for identifying patients eligible for this type of immunotherapy represent one of the efforts of ongoing studies. We aim to summarize the most recent evidence on immune checkpoint inhibitors in neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer worldwide. Over 75% of non-muscle invasive cancer patients require conservative local treatment, while the remaining 25% of patients undergo radical cystectomy or radiotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors represent a novel class of immunotherapy drugs that restore natural antitumoral immune activity via the blockage of inhibitory receptors and ligands expressed on antigen-presenting cells, T lymphocytes and tumour cells. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in bladder cancer has been expanded from the neoadjuvant setting, i.e., after radical cystectomy, to the adjuvant setting, i.e., before the operative time or chemotherapy, in order to improve the overall survival and to reduce the morbidity and mortality of both the disease and its treatment. However, some patients do not respond to checkpoint inhibitors. As result, the capability for identifying patients that are eligible for this immunotherapy represent one of the efforts of ongoing studies. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the most recent evidence regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, in a neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting, in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessment of total, PTEN and AR-V7+ circulating tumor cells count by flow cytometry in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving enzalutamide. In this study men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, scheduled to start enzalutamide, were assessed for circulating tumor cells count and molecular characterization (total, PTEN and AR-V7+ circulating tumor cells count) by the use of flow cytometry. We found that flow cytometry could be used to enumerate circulating tumor cells, but also to assess molecular biomarkers on their surface. Introduction. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a deadly disease. Enzalutamide is an oral second-generation anti-androgen that is active in mCRPC. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) count correlates with overall survival (OS) in mCRPC, whereas detection of the androgen-receptor splice variant 7 (AR-V7) in CTC predicts poor response to oral second-generation anti-androgens. Also, loss of PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog) in CTC is a biomarker of poor prognosis in mCRPC. Patients and methods. In this translational study, we employed flow cytometry to assess total, PTEN-, and AR-V7+ CTC count per 7.5 mL of whole blood in a prospective cohort of patients with mCRPC receiving enzalutamide. Results. CTCs were assessed in a total of 45 men with mCRPC at baseline and at 12 weeks. Overall, CTC, PTEN- CTC, and AR-V7+ CTC detection rate was high, at baseline, with 84.4%, 71.1%, and 51.1% of samples showing at least 1 cell/7.5-mL blood, respectively, and after 3 months, with 93.3%, 64.4%, and 77.7% of samples showing at least 1 cell/7.5-mL blood, respectively. Median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and OS were 6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6-9) and 14.3 (95% CI, 12.8-20.3) months, respectively. Median (interquartile range) total CTC count at baseline was 5 (3; 8), whereas median (interquartile range) PTEN- CTC count was 2 (0; 4) and median (interquartile range) AR-V7+ CTC count was 1 (0; 3). At baseline, ≥ 5 versus < 5 total CTC count was associated with worse rPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.35; 95% CI, 1.14-4.84; P = .021) and OS (HR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.45-6.54; P = .003), whereas ≥ 2 versus < 2 PTEN- CTC count was associated with worse rPFS (HR, 3.96; 95% CI, 1.8-8.72; P = .001) and OS (HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.12-5; P = .025). Finally, ≥ 1 versus < 1 AR-V7+ CTC count was also associated with worse rPFS (HR, 5.05; 95% CI, 2.4-10.64; P < .001) and OS (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.1-4.58; P = .026). Conclusions. Despite multiple limitations, including the small sample size, our preliminary study suggests that assessment of CTC via flow cytometry may provide potentially useful prognostic and predictive information in advanced prostate cancer. Further studies are warranted. Micro-Abstract: In this study, men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, scheduled to start enzalutamide, were assessed for circulating tumor cell count and molecular characterization (total, PTEN-, and AR-V7+ circulating tumor cell count) by the use of flow cytometry. We found that flow cytometry could be used to enumerate circulating tumor cells, but also to assess molecular biomarkers on their surface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On March 11, 2020, the WHO has declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a global pandemic. As the last few months have profoundly changed the delivery of health care in the world, we should recognize the effort of numerous comprehensive cancer centers to share experiences and knowledge to develop best practices to care for oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients as well as physicians must be aware of all these constraints and profound social, personal, and medical challenges posed by the tackling of this deadly disease in everyday life in order to adjust to such a completely novel scenario. This review will discuss facing the challenges and the current approaches that cancer centers in Italy and United States are adopting in order to cope with clinical and research activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate and bladder cancer represent the two most frequently diagnosed genito-urinary malignancies. Diet has been implicated in both prostate and bladder cancer. Given their prolonged latency and high prevalence rates, both prostate and bladder cancer represent attractive candidates for dietary preventive measures, including the use of nutritional supplements. Flavonols, a class of flavonoids, are commonly found in fruit and vegetables and are known for their protective effect against diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, a higher dietary intake of flavonols was associated with a lower risk of both bladder and prostate cancer in epidemiological studies. In this systematic review, we gathered all available evidence supporting the anti-cancer potential of selected flavonols (kaempferol, fisetin and myricetin) against bladder and prostate cancer. A total of 21, 15 and 7 pre-clinical articles on bladder or prostate cancer reporting on kaempferol, fisetin and myricetin, respectively, were found, while more limited evidence was available from animal models and epidemiological studies or clinical trials. In conclusion, the available evidence supports the potential use of these flavonols in prostate and bladder cancer, with a low expected toxicity, thus providing the rationale for clinical trials that explore dosing, settings for clinical use as well as their use in combination with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunotherapy based on anti PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors has proven to be more effective than sunitinib in the first-line setting of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). RCC patients with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line anti PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib, presenting efficacy data in the sub-group of sRCC patients. The systematic research was conducted on Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase and updated until 31th January, 2020. Abstracts from ESMO and ASCO (2010–2019) were also reviewed. Full texts and abstracts reporting about RCTs testing first-line anti-PD-1/ PD-L1 agents vs. sunitinib in RCC were included if sRCC sub-group analyses of either PFS (progression-free survival), OS (overall survival) or radiological response rate were available. Pooled data from 3814 RCC patients in the ITT (intention-to-treat) population and from 512 sRCC patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. In the sRCC sub-group vs. the ITT population, pooled estimates of the PFS-HRs were 0.57 (95%: 0.45–0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70–0.89), respectively, with a statistically meaningful interaction favoring the sRCC sub-group (pooled ratio of the PFS-HRs = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50–0.82; p < 0.001). Pooled estimates of the difference in CR-R (complete response-rate) achieved with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib were + 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04–0.16) vs. + 0.04 (95% CI: 0.00–0.07) in the sRCC vs. the non-sRCC sub groups, with a statistically meaningful difference of + 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.10; p = 0.007) favoring the sRCC sub-group. Sarcomatoid histology may be associated with improved efficacy of anti PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib in terms of PFS and CR-R. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some commonly available patient or disease characteristics may be associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving EGFR-TKIs (epidermal growth factor receptor - tyrosine kinase inhibitors). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) to explore differences in outcomes associated with EGFR-TKIs among subgroups of EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Pooled HRs for progression or death (PFS-HRs) and pooled HRs for death (OS-HRs) were compared among sub-groups defined according to baseline clinical and demographic variables as well as type of EGFR mutation. In the entire assessable population of 4465 EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients, significant interactions with PFS were found for gender (males vs. females; pooled ratio of the PFS-HRs = 1.2; 95% CI 1.12–1.56), smoking history (smokers vs. non-smokers; pooled ratio of the PFS-HRs = 1.26; 95% CI 1.05–1.51), and type of EGFR mutation (patients with exon 21 L858R mutation vs. exon 19 deletion; pooled ratio of the PFS-HRs = 1.39; 95% CI 1.18–1.63). Male patients, smokers and patients with EGFR exon 21 L858R mutation may derive less benefit from EGFR-TKIs compared to female patients, non-smokers and patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of the current research was to explore the potential prognostic value of readily available clinical and pathologic variables in bladder cancer. The novel association found between cholesterol levels and prognosis may provide the rationale for exploring novel treatments. Patients included had histologically confirmed urothelial bladder cancer and were treated with at least 3 cycles of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy. A total of 245 patients at low, intermediate and high risk, presenting with 0-1, 2 or 3-4 risk factors, including positive lymph nodes, Hb <12.8, NLR ≥2.7 and cholesterol levels ≥199, were included. Five-year cancer-specific survival rate was 0.67, 0.78 and 0.94 at high, intermediate and low risk, respectively. Total cholesterol levels at the time of cystectomy may represent a commonly assessable prognostic factor and may be incorporated in a clinically meaningful risk-group classification model.

Background: Three or four cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard neoadjuvant treatment prior to cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Although NCCN guidelines recommend 4 cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine, three cycles are also commonly administered in clinical practice. In this multicenter retrospective study, we assessed a large and homogenous cohort of patients with urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) treated with three or four cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine followed by radical cystectomy, in order to explore whether three vs. four cycles were associated with different outcomes., Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive UBC included in this retrospective study had to be treated with either 3 (cohort A) or 4 (cohort B) cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine as neoadjuvant therapy before undergoing radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy. Outcomes including pathologic downstaging to non-muscle invasive disease, pathologic complete response (defined as absence of disease -ypT0), overall- and cancer-specific- survival as well as time to recurrence were compared between cohorts A vs. B., Results: A total of 219 patients treated at 14 different high-volume Institutions were included in this retrospective study. Patients who received 3 (cohort A) vs. 4 (cohort B) cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin-gemcitabine were 160 (73,1%) vs. 59 (26,9%).At univariate analysis, the number of neoadjuvant cycles was not associated with either pathologic complete response, pathologic downstaging, time to recurrence, cancer specific, and overall survival. Of note, patients in cohort B vs. A showed a worse non-cancer specific overall survival at univariate analysis (HR= 2.53; 95 CI= 1.05 - 6.10; p=0.046), although this finding was not confirmed at multivariate analysis., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that 3 cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine may be equally effective, with less long-term toxicity, compared to 4 cycles in the neoadjuvant setting., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Ferro, de Cobelli, Musi, Lucarelli, Terracciano, Pacella, Muto, Porreca, Busetto, Del Giudice, Soria, Gontero, Cantiello, Damiano, Crocerossa, Farhan, Autorino, Vartolomei, Muto, Marchioni, Mari, Scafuri, Minervini, Longo, Chiancone, Perdona, De Placido, Verde, Catellani, Luzzago, Mistretta, Ditonno, Caputo, Battaglia, Zamboni, Antonelli, Greco, Russo, Hurle, Crisan, Manfredi, Porpiglia, Di Lorenzo, Crocetto and Buonerba.)

Aim: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus-specific reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) represents the diagnostic gold standard. We explored the value of chest ultrasonography to predict positivity to SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR in suspected COVID-19 cases., Patients & Methods: Consecutive patients with suspect COVID-19 were included if they had fever and/or history of cough and/or dyspnea. Lung ultrasound score (LUSS) was computed according to published methods., Results: A total of 76 patients were included. A 3-variable model based on aspartate transaminase (AST) > upper limit of normal, LUSS >12 and body temperature >37.5°C yielded an overall accuracy of 91%., Conclusion: A simple LUSS-based model may represent a powerful tool for initial assessment in suspected cases of COVID-19., Competing Interests: Financial & competing interests disclosure C Buonerba is a member of the Future Science OA Editorial Board. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript., (© 2020 Enrico Allegorico.)

Sunitinib is the most commonly prescribed drug for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and has been associated with multiple adverse events related to its on-and off-target effects, including hand and foot syndrome and fatigue. It was hypothesized that sunitinib-induced fatigue may be related to off target inhibition of the AMPK enzyme, which results in impairment of energy-producing processes at a systemic level. Quercetin is a naturally occurring flavonol with established AMPK-stimulating activity. While clinical use of quercetin is limited by its poor bio-availability, quercetin-3-O-β-d-glucopyranoside, that is isoquercetin, has an improved pharmacokinetic profile. On the grounds of the in vitro stimulatory activity with respect to AMPk, we hypothesized that oral isoquercetin could improve fatigue in kidney cancer patients receiving sunitinib. Given the lack of data on the safety of isoquercetin given concomitantly with sunitinib, we conducted a phase I trial to assess the safety of GMP manufactured isoquercetin given at two dose levels (450 and 900 mg a day). In the 12-patient study cohort included in this study, isoquercetin was administered concomitantly with 50 mg sunitinib for a median 81 days (IQR, 75.5, 86.5). None of the 12 patients required isoquercetin suspension or isoquercetin dose reduction because of adverse events. No abnormalities in ECG, heart or lower limbs doppler ultrasound were detected. A statistically significant improvement was reported for the FACIT fatigue score (6.8 points; 95% CI: 2.8-10.8; p = 0.002) and for the FACIT Adverse Events score (18.9 points; 95% CI: 9.1-28.8; p < 0.001) after isoquercetin consumption vs. baseline. In this phase I trial, isoquercetin was remarkably safe, with a preliminary signal of activity in terms of improvement of sunitinib adverse events.

Background: Cabazitaxel is a second-generation taxane that is approved for use with concomitant low dose daily prednisone in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel failure. Since the role of daily corticosteroids in improving cabazitaxel efficacy or ameliorating its safety profile has not been adequately investigated so far, we compared outcomes of patients receiving cabazitaxel with or without daily corticosteroids in a retrospective single-Institution cohort of mCRPC patients. Patients and methods: Medical records of deceased patients with documented mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel following prior docetaxel between January, 2011 and January, 2017 were reviewed at the single participating center. Patients who were receiving daily doses of systemic corticosteroids other than low dose daily prednisone or prednisolone (<= 10 mg a day) were excluded. The primary end point of this analysis was overall survival (OS). Secondary end-points were exposure to cabazitaxel as well as incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate prednisone use and other variables as potentially prognostic for overall survival. Results: Overall, among 91 patients, 57 patients received cabazitaxel concurrently with low dose prednisone and 34 patients did not receive concurrent prednisone. The median overall survival of the population was 9.8 months (interquartile range, 9 to 14). Patients receiving prednisone had an overall survival of 9 months (interquartile range, 8 to 12) vs.14 months (interquartile range, 9.4 to 16.7) for patients not treated with prednisone. Approximately 45% of patients had a >30% PSA decline at 12 weeks. Prednisone use was not significantly prognostic for overall survival or PSA decline ≥30% rates on regression analyses. Importantly, a >30% PSA decline at 12, but not at 3, 6, 9 weeks, was prognostic for improved survival at multivariate analysis Conclusions: The data presented here support the hypothesis that omitting daily corticosteroids in cabazitaxel-treated patients has no negative impact on either survival or safety profile. In the large prospective trial CABACARE, cabazitaxel-treated patients will be randomized to receive or not receive daily prednisone. The CABACARE (EudraCT n. 2016-003646-81) study is currently ongoing at University Federico II of Naples and at other multiple participating centers in Italy., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: Carlo Buonerba & Giuseppe Di Lorenzo: Research Support to Institution from Astellas, Sanofi and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from for Sanofi (unrelated to this work) Guru Sonpavde: Grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim, grants from Bayer, grants from Onyx-Amgen, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Argos, grants and personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Agensys, personal fees from Clinical Care Options, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees from Uptodate, personal fees from Biotheranostics, personal fees from Exelixis, personal fees from Bristol-Myers-Squibb, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network), outside the submitted work.