Search

Second- or third-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have dramatically changed in the last few years. There are no criteria for the choice between nivolumab and cabozantinib, which both demonstrated overall survival (OS) gain in pivotal trials.We conducted an analysis of oncological outcomes in patients treated in the Veneto Region (Italy), studying different sequences of TKI-nivolumab-cabozantinib or TKI-cabozantinib-nivolumab in a publicly funded healthcare system.We conducted a retrospective, real-world analysis of all consecutive patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in 2017-2018 at 19 Oncology Units in the Veneto Region.We identified 170 patients, 73 % males, median age 68.4 years. All patients started second-line treatment, 59 % received a third-line therapy. Patients with NLR3 had a shorter OS (p0.0001). In the second-line treatment, nivolumab was administered to 108 patients (63 %), cabozantinib to 29 (17 %); in the third-line treatment nivolumab was administered to 42 patients (25 %), cabozantinib to 49 (29 %). Median OS and PFS in second line treatment were 28.4 and 6.6 months for nivolumab, 16.8 and 6.6 months for cabozantinib. Median OS and PFS in third-line treatment were 27 and 5.2 months for nivolumab, 16.6 and 7.5 months for cabozantinib. Median OS for nivolumabcabozantinib sequence versus cabozantinibnivolumab was 28.8 versus 19.9 months (p = 0.2); median PFS for both the sequences were similar at 5.7 months. A cost effectiveness per month of survival of the two sequences analysis was performed: the cost per month for the nivolumabcabozantinib sequence was 1738.60whereas the cost for the other one was €1624.80.In our real-world cohort, most patients received nivolumab as second-line treatment. Outcomes of single drugs are superimposable with those in the published literature. Both the sequences of nivolumab and cabozantinib appear to be viable, effective strategies from an OS and cost-effective perspective.

290 Background: Second (2L) or third-line (3L) treatment options for mRCC have dramatically changed in the last years. The standard of care as per Italian Regulatory Agencies approvals is N or C. To date, there are no criteria for the choice between N and C, which both demonstrated OS gain in the pivotal trials. Methods: We planned a retrospective, real world analysis of the use of N and C as 2L and 3L treatment in 17 Oncology Units of Veneto Region. All consecutive patients (pts) with mRCC treated in advanced setting in 2017-2018 were included. Results: We identified 170 pts, 73% males, median age 68.4 years. All pts started a 2L treatment while only 59% received a 3L treatment. In our cohort, patients with NLR > 3 at treatment start had a shorter OS (43 vs 90 months (mos), p < 0.0001); IMDC classification maintained its prognostic role. In 2L, N was administrated in 108 pts (63%), C in 29 pts (17%); in 3L N was administrated in 42 pts (25%), C in 49 pts (29%). Reported oncologists’ reasons for 2L choice were: change of mechanism of action compared to first line (28%), response to previous TKI (21.2%), intolerance to TKI (17.6%), previous toxicity (12.9%), tumor burden (11.2%), age of the patient (4.1%). Median OS and PFS in 2L were 28.4 and 6.6 mos for N, 16.8 and 6.6 mos for 2L C. Median OS and PFS in 3L were 27 and 5.2 mos for N, 16.6 and 7.5 mos for C. 46 pts received the sequence of drugs N > C, 12 the opposite sequence C > N. Median OS for N > C vs C > N were 96.6 vs 36 mos (p > 0.0001); median PFS for both the sequences were similar at 5.7 mos (p = ns). The cost per patient of the sequence N > C is 51.606 € while for the sequence C > N is 31.480,00 €. Between the two sequences a cost effectiveness per month of survival analysis was performed: the cost per month of OS for the sequence N > C was 534,18 € while for the sequence C > N was 874,46 €, heavily higher. Conclusions: In our real-world setting cohort, most of the pts received N as 2L treatment and a minority received C. Outcome of single drug are superimposable to published literature. With the limits of the retrospective nature of the study, with a cost per month of OS lower a much longer OS, the sequence N > C appear to be a better treatment strategy.

Neuroendocrine tumors are the most common primary tumors of the small bowel, but diagnosis is usually delayed as the lesions are small and symptoms are mild or nonspecific. Diagnosis of this disease is currently based on radiologic or endoscopic findings. Ultrasound (US) is used as a first-line examination in patients with abdominal symptoms, as this technique permits an overall view of the gastrointestinal tract providing diagnosis of inflammatory and/or neoplastic disorders in a large proportion of patients. The aim of this case report is to describe the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of elastography in the diagnosis of a tumor of the ileum. The patient underwent conventional gray-scale US and elastography before surgery and these examinations were repeated postoperatively on the surgical specimen confirming preoperative outcome.Il tumore neuroendocrino, tra le neoplasie primitive dell’intestino tenue, è il più frequente, la diagnosi è usualmente tardiva per le piccole dimensioni e per la sintomatologia lieve, poco specifica. La diagnosi di questa forma morbosa si basa attualmente su metodiche radiologiche o endoscopiche. L’ecografia è indagine di primo livello in soggetti con sintomatologia addominale ed in una percentuale di soggetti permette anche lo studio del tubo digerente e la diagnosi di patologie neoplastiche o infiammatorie. Scopo del lavoro è di descrivere l’utilità della elastografia nella diagnosi di un tumore dell’ileo in cui l’esame ecografico convenzionale ed elastografico sono stati effettuati sul paziente prima dell’intervento chirurgico e successivamente sul pezzo operatorio con conferma dei riscontri precedenti all’intervento.

Acute mesenteric ischemia is a serious condition associated with high mortality. Multislice CT and magnetic resonance angiography have proved accurate in diagnosing this pathology, which requires a prompt diagnosis to start appropriate therapy. We report the case of an 87-year-old woman with acute mesenteric ischemia, in whom contrast-enhanced sonography visualized the occluded superior mesenteric artery and the infarcted portion of the intestine.