Search

To provide evidence-based guidelines about Peritoneal Surface Malignancy (PSM) treatment for the Peritoneal Surfaces Oncology Group International. The GRADE ADOLOPMENT method was used to adapt recommendations from the Italian Medical Oncology Association Guideline on PSM. Seven scientific society were involved to form five guideline panels composed of 28 medical professionals from 14 countries. Panelists prioritized 7 relevant questions. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence and summarized information. The panel agreed on seven recommendations., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Surgical Oncology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Breast cancer stands as the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the primary cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide, including Italy. With the increasing number of survivors, many are enrolled in regular follow-up programs. However, adherence to recommendations from scientific societies (such as ASCO, ESMO, AIOM) for breast cancer follow-up management varies in daily clinical practice across different cancer centers, potentially resulting in unequal management and escalating costs. To address these concerns, the Italian Association of Multidisciplinary Oncology Groups (AIGOM) orchestrated a Consensus on early Breast Cancer follow-up utilizing the Estimate-Talk-Estimate methodology. Following the identification of 18 Items and 38 statements by a select Board, 46 out of 54 (85.1%) experts comprising a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional panel expressed their degree of consensus (Expert Panel). The Expert Panel underscores the potential for the multidisciplinary team to tailor follow-up intensity based on the individual risk of recurrence. In selected cases, the general practitioner may be recommended as the clinical lead for breast cancer follow-up, both after completion of adjuvant treatment and at early initiation of endocrine therapy in low-risk patients. Throughout follow-up, and alongside oncologic surveillance, the expert panel advises osteometabolic, cardiologic, and gynecologic surveillance for the early detection and management of early and late treatment toxicities. Moreover, preserving quality of life is emphasized, with provisions for psycho-oncologic support and encouragement to adopt protective lifestyle behaviors., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: None of the authors has any interests to report directly related to this manuscript. Outside the scope of this manuscript: Stefania Gori, Fiorenza De Rose, no conflict of interests to declare. Antonella Ferro, honoraria from Novartis, MDS, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Ely Lilly, Gentili. Alessandra Fabi grants from Astra Zeneca (steering committee); consulting fees from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini; honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo Exact Sciences; travel grants from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini; advisory board from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Menarini. Catia Angiolini, Giuseppe Azzarello, Maurizio Cancian, Michela Cinquini, Luca Arecco no conflict of interests to declare. Cynthia Aristei, grants from PRIN 2023, from the Ministry of University and Research. Project title “The microbiome in breast cancer therapy and its potential for pRobIOtics to improve treatment outcome. Acronym: BARRIO”. Daniela Bernardi, Laura Biganzoli, Anna Cariello no conflict of interests to declare. Laura Cortesi, report grants from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Pfizer; consulting fees and honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Gilead, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Daijchii Sanchio, Novartis; travel grants from Gilead, Pfizer, Daijchi Sanchio; Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis. Elisabetta Cretella no conflict of interests to declare. Carmen Criscitiello, grants from Seagen, Gilead; consulting fees and honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, MSD; Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Roche. Ugo De Giorgi consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer; travel grants from Pfizer, Ipsen, Astrazeneca. Maria Carmen De Santis, Giuseppe Deledda, Massimo Dessena, Sara Donati, Arianna Dri, Gianluigi Ferretti no conflict of interests to declare. Jennifer Foglietta, honoraria from Novartis; travel grants from Roche, Sophos, Pfizer; Advisory Board from Menarini Stem Line. Davide Franceschini, Pierfrancesco Franco, Alessio Schirone no conflict of interests to declare. Daniele Generali, grants from LILT, University of Trieste, Novartis, Roche; consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Accord, Daiichi Dankyo; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Accord, Daiichi Dankyo, Astrazeneca, Istituto Gentili; travel grants from Roche, Menarini; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from Mednote. Lorenzo Gianni, travel grants from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer; Advisory Board from Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Seagen. Stefano Giordani, Giovanni Grandi, Maria Cristina Leonardi, Stefano Magno, no conflict of interests to declare. Luca Malorni, consulting fees from Menarini, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche; travel grants from Roche, Menarini, Celgene, IT Health Fusion; Advisory Board from Novartis. Carlotta Mantoan no conflict of interests to declare. Federica Martorana honoraria from Lilly, Daychii-Sankyo, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis; travel grants from Gilead, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly; advisory board from Amgen. Icro Meattini consulting fees from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Menarini StemLine. Bruno Meduri, Laura Merlini, Federica Miglietta, Alessandra Modena, Fabrizio Nicolis, Isabella Palumbo, no conflict of interests to declare. Pietro Panizza honoraria and travel grants from Bayer AG. Francesca Angela Rovera, Piermario Salvini, Armando Santoro, Mario Taffurelli, no conflict of interests to declare. Angela Toss consulting fees and grants from Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Astrazeneca, Gilead, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo; travel grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini, Astrazeneca. Paolo Tralongo, Monica Turazza, Matteo Valerio, Matteo Verzè no conflict of interests to declare. Patrizia Vici consulting fees from Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis; honoraria from EISAI, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer; travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, IPSEN; advisory board from Pfizer, Novartis. Claudio Zamagni no conflict of interests to declare. Giuseppe Curigliano advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Ellipsis, Veracyte, Exact Science, Celcuity, Merck, BMS, Gilead, Sanofi, Menarini. Giovanni Pappagallo no conflict of interests to declare. Alberto Zambelli consulting fees Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, DaiichiSankyo, Seagen, ExactSciences, MSD, Gentili, Gilead; travel grants from Roche, DaiichiSankyo, AstraZeneca, Novartis; advisory board from Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) previously issued a recommendation endorsing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treating diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM). However, broader acceptance of this approach, particularly within some segments of medical oncology, remains limited. To address this, PSOGI initiated a multisociety consensus effort, involving multidisciplinary International Societies, to strengthen and expand the endorsement of CRS-HIPEC for DMPM. Using the GRADE ADOLOPMENT approach, the expert panel systematically reviewed existing guidelines and evaluated the available evidence to reinforce the recommendation. The panel unanimously recommended CRS-HIPEC for a carefully selected subset of DMPM patients, emphasizing that this approach offers the best potential for improved survival compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. Despite the very low certainty of evidence, a strong recommendation was issued, reflecting the panel's recognition of the life-threatening feature of DMPM and the limited efficacy of systemic chemotherapy. This consensus also highlights the importance of centralized and expert-driven care. The recommendation aligns with previous guidelines and underscores the critical need for broader acceptance of this treatment strategy in managing this rare and aggressive malignancy., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

While recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have suggested superior overall survival (OS) outcomes with segmentectomy over lobectomy, questions remain regarding the comparability of these surgical procedures for treating early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthetize existing evidence and to compare the survival outcomes observed for stage IA NSCLC following segmentectomy or lobectomy. 40 studies (38 observational, 2 RCTs) encompassing 103,926 patients were analyzed. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrences, harvested lymph nodes, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed using established tools, and evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. Non-RCTs showed an OS HR of 1.10 (95 % CI: 0.94-1.30, p = 0.24) with low certainty, contrasting with RCTs' HR of 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.66-1.02, p = 0.7) with moderate certainty. Local recurrences exhibited OR 1.40 (95 % CI: 0.94-2.08, p = 0.09) in non-RCTs with low certainty, and RR 1.61 (95 % CI: 1.12-2.31, p = 0.01) in RCTs with low certainty. Non-RCTs showed DFS HR 1.13 (95 % CI: 0.95-1.34, p = 0.18) with low certainty, while RCTs yielded HR 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.85-1.18, p = 0.97) with moderate certainty. Lobectomy resulted in more harvested lymph nodes. Postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly. While definitive evidence for OS, DFS, and postoperative outcomes differences was inconclusive, a potential increase in local recurrences following lobectomy was noted. Further well-designed studies are warranted to enhance evidence and inform clinical practice in stage I lung cancer surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Women who have a mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction may be offered different options for breast reconstruction, including use of implants or the woman's own tissue (autologous tissue flaps). The choice of technique depends on factors such as the woman's preferences, breast characteristics, preoperative imaging, comorbidities, smoking habits, prior chest or breast irradiation, and planned adjuvant therapies., Objectives: To assess the effects of implants versus autologous tissue flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction on women's quality of life, satisfaction, and short- and long-term surgical complications., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries in July 2022., Selection Criteria: We included studies that compared implant-based reconstruction with autologous tissue-based reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. The minimum eligible sample size was 100 participants., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data using standard Cochrane procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: Thirty-five non-randomised studies with 57,555 participants met our inclusion criteria. There were nine prospective cohort studies and 26 retrospective cohort studies. We judged 26 studies at serious overall risk of bias and the remaining studies at moderate overall risk of bias. Some studies measured quality of life and satisfaction using the BREAST-Q (scale of 0 to 100, higher is better). Implants may reduce postoperative psychosocial well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps (mean difference (MD) -4.26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.91 to -3.61; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on postoperative physical well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.92 points, 95% CI -4.44 to 0.60; I² = 87%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce postoperative sexual well-being compared with autologous reconstruction (MD -6.63 points, 95% CI -7.55 to -5.72; I² = 0; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the breast, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -8.17 points, 95% CI -11.41 to -4.92; I² = 90%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to a woman's satisfaction with breast size, bra fit, appearance in the mirror (clothed or unclothed), and how the breast feels to touch. Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the reconstruction (MD -5.96 points, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.68; I² = 62%; 4 studies, 1196 participants; low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to whether the aesthetic outcome has met the woman's expectations, the impact surgery has had on her life, and whether she thinks she made the right decision to have the reconstruction. Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on the risk of short-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03; I² = 91%; 22 studies, 34,244 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may increase long-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.22; I² = 94%; 17 studies, 26,930 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may have little to no effect on the need for reintervention compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.68; I² = 93%; 15 studies, 14,171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce the duration of surgery compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -125.04 minutes, 95% CI -131.41 to -118.67; I² = 0; 2 studies, 836 participants; very low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The findings of this review show that autologous tissue-based reconstruction compared with implant-based reconstruction may improve participant-reported outcomes such as psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and satisfaction with the reconstruction. There is also very uncertain evidence to suggest that autologous tissue-based reconstruction increases satisfaction with the breast and reduces the risk of long-term complications compared with implants. Implant-based reconstruction may be a shorter procedure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Despite the growing demand for breast reconstruction, the best technique has not been adequately studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the evidence provided by non-randomised studies is often unsatisfactory. There is no superior breast reconstruction technique for all women. Future research should focus on the definition of decisional drivers to guide an evidence-based shared decision-making process in reconstructive breast surgery., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) are common in colorectal cancer patients. This article aims to provide GRADE guidelines for the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in two clinical situations: (1) To determine the value of adjuvant HIPEC for the prevention of CPM in high-risk colorectal cancer patients; (2) to determine the impact on survival of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC followed by adjuvant systemic chemotherapy as compared to systemic chemotherapy alone in patients with CPM., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aim: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a clinical practice reference for the management of adult patients with overweight or obesity associated with metabolic complications who are resistant to lifestyle modification., Methods: Surgeons, endocrinologists, gastroenterologists, psychologists, pharmacologists, a general practitioner, a nutritionist, a nurse and a patients' representative acted as multi-disciplinary panel. This GL has been developed following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed by a methodologic group. For each question, the panel identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence. Those classified as "critical" were considered for clinical practice recommendations. Consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations was reached through a majority vote., Results: The present GL provides recommendations about the role of both pharmacological and surgical treatment for the clinical management of the adult patient population with BMI > 27 kg/m 2 and < 40 kg/m 2 associated with weight-related metabolic comorbidities, resistant to lifestyle changes. The panel: suggests the timely implementation of therapeutic interventions in addition to diet and physical activity; recommends the use of semaglutide 2.4 mg/week and suggests liraglutide 3 mg/day in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by diabetes or pre-diabetes; recommends semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; recommends semaglutide 2.4 mg/week as first-line drug in patients with obesity or overweight that require a larger weight loss to reduce comorbidities; suggests the use of orlistat in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by hypertriglyceridemia that assume high-calorie and high-fat diet; suggests the use of naltrexone/bupropion combination in patients with obesity or overweight, with emotional eating; recommends surgical intervention (sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or metabolic gastric bypass/gastric bypass with single anastomosis/gastric mini bypass in patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m 2 who are suitable for metabolic surgery; and suggests gastric banding as a possible, though less effective, surgical alternative., Conclusion: The present GL is directed to all physicians addressing people with obesity-working in hospitals, territorial services or private practice-and to general practitioners and patients. The recommendations should also consider the patient's preferences and the available resources and expertise., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE).)

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) accounts for ∼20%-25% of all skin tumors. Its precise incidence is often challenging to determine due to limited statistics and its incorporation with mucosal forms. While most cases have a favorable prognosis, challenges arise in patients presenting with locally advanced or metastatic forms, mainly appearing in immunocompromised patients, solid organ transplantation recipients, or those facing social difficulties. Traditionally, chemotherapy and targeted therapy were the mainstays for advanced cases, but recent approvals of immunotherapeutic agents like cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have revolutionized treatment options. These guidelines, developed by the Italian Association of Medical Oncologists (AIOM) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, aim to guide clinicians in diagnosing, treating, and monitoring patients with CSCC, covering key aspects from primitive tumors to advanced stages, selected by a panel of experts selected by AIOM and other national scientific societies. The incorporation of these guidelines into clinical practice is expected to enhance patient care and address the evolving landscape of CSCC management., Competing Interests: Disclosure PQue reported consulting or advisory role for Roche/Genentech, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Merck Serono; travel, accommodations, expenses from MSD Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron. FB reported advisory role for SunPharma; speaker fee, travel/accommodations for presentations or lectures for Sanofi/Regeneron; honoraria as consultant for Roche, Novartis. PB reported consulting or advisory role for Merck, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sun Pharma, Angelini, Molteni, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK; research funding by GSK, MSD, Sanofi, BMS. MDV reported consulting or advisory role for Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore. KP reported advisory board roles with Abbvie, LEO Pharma, Janssen, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi. PQua reported advisory board and speaker fee from Sanofi, SunPharma, IGEA. IZ reported advisory board and speaker fee from Sanofi, SunPharma, Philogen, Regeneron, Novartis, MSD, Cieffe Derma, La Roche Posay, BMS, Almirall. FS reported honoraria for presentations or lectures from Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Merk, Sun Pharma, MSD, Pierre Fabre; participation on advisory board for Novartis, Philogen SunPharma, and MSD. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The incorporation of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) into the management of operable breast cancer (BC) has been hampered by the heterogeneous results from different studies. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of ctDNA in patients with operable (non metastatic) BC., Materials and Methods: A systematic search of databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL) and conference proceedings was conducted to identify studies reporting the association of ctDNA detection with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage I-III BC. Log-hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled at each timepoint of ctDNA assessment (baseline, after neoadjuvant therapy, and follow-up). ctDNA assays were classified as primary tumor-informed and non tumor-informed., Results: Of the 3174 records identified, 57 studies including 5779 patients were eligible. In univariate analyses, ctDNA detection was associated with worse DFS at baseline [HR 2.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.92-4.63], after neoadjuvant therapy (HR 7.69, 95% CI 4.83-12.24), and during follow-up (HR 14.04, 95% CI 7.55-26.11). Similarly, ctDNA detection at all timepoints was associated with worse OS (at baseline: HR 2.76, 95% CI 1.60-4.77; after neoadjuvant therapy: HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.44-5.14; and during follow-up: HR 9.19, 95% CI 3.26-25.90). Similar DFS and OS results were observed in multivariate analyses. Pooled HRs were numerically higher when ctDNA was detected at the end of neoadjuvant therapy or during follow-up and for primary tumor-informed assays. ctDNA detection sensitivity and specificity for BC recurrence ranged from 0.31 to 1.0 and 0.7 to 1.0, respectively. The mean lead time from ctDNA detection to overt recurrence was 10.81 months (range 0-58.9 months)., Conclusions: ctDNA detection was associated with worse DFS and OS in patients with operable BC, particularly when detected after treatment and using primary tumor-informed assays. ctDNA detection has a high specificity for anticipating BC relapse., Competing Interests: Disclosure GNM reports meeting/travel grants from AstraZeneca. EA reports consultancy fees/honoraria from Eli Lilly, Sandoz, and AstraZeneca; research grant to the institution from Gilead; meeting/travel grants from Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Genetic, Istituto Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca (all outside the submitted work). DMB reports full time employment at European Society for Medical Oncology since September 1, 2023; speaker’s engagement from Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca; participation as medical research fellow in research studies with institutionally funded by Eli Lilly, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd to Institut Jules Bordet; non-financial interest as member of the board of directors for Associaҫão de Investigaҫão e Ciudados de Suporte em Oncologia; non-remunerated prior leadership role as Portuguese Young Oncologists Committee Chair from Sociedade Portuguesa de Oncologia (all outside the submitted work). ALC reports leadership role at Eisai, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, and MSD; intellectual property for MEDSIR; a consulting role for Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Exact Sciences, Seagen, and GSK; to be part of the speaker bureau for Lilly, AstraZeneca, and MSD; to receive research funding from Pfizer, Roche, Foundation Medicine, Exact Sciences, Pierre-Fabre, and Agendia; and travel compensation from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. JC reports consulting/advisor role for Roche, Celgene, Cellestia, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Erytech, Athenex, Polyphor, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GSK, Leuko, Bioasis, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal Genomics, Expres2ion Biotechnologies, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and AbbVie; honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca; research funding to the institution from Roche, Ariad pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Baxalta GMBH/Servier Affaires, Bayer healthcare, Eisai, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Guardant Health, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, PIQUR Therapeutics, IQVIA, and Queen Mary University of London; stocks from MAJ3 Capital and Leuko (relative); travel, accommodation, and other expenses covered by Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; patents ‘Pharmaceutical Combinations of A Pi3k Inhibitor And A Microtubule Destabilizing Agent’—Javier Cortés Castán, Alejandro Piris Giménez, Violeta Serra Elizalde, WO 2014/199294 A (issued) and ‘Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy’—Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortés, US 2019/ 0338368 A1 (licensed). MI reports honoraria from Novartis and Seattle Genetics; research support to the institution from Natera Inc, Inivata, Roche, and Pfizer; and travel grants from Roche and Gilead. GP reports being part of the advisory board/speaker bureau for Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Illumina, and ADS Biotech; and grants from Candriam and Thermo Fisher. EA reports honoraria and/or being part of the advisory board for Roche/GNE, Novartis, Seagen, Zodiac, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, and Astra-Zeneca; travel grants from Roche/GNE and AstraZeneca; research grant to the institution from Roche/GNE, Astra-Zeneca, and GSK/Novartis. SDC reports being on the speaker’s bureau for AstraZeneca; and on the advisory board for Pierre-Fabre, IQVIA, and MEDSIR. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Giuseppe Cabibbo: Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche. Bruno Daniele: Astrazeneca, IPSEN, EISAI, MSD, Roche, Amgen, Incyte, Sanofi Mauro Borzio: none Andrea Casadei-Gardini: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, MSD, Roche, Servier Umberto Cillo: none Agostino Colli: none Massimiliano Conforti: none Vincenzo Dadduzio: MSD, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Amgen Francesco Dionisi: none Fabio Farinati: none Ivan Gardini: none Edoardo Giovanni Giannini: Rita Golfieri: Bayer, Bracco, Astra Zeneca Maria Guido: none Andrea Mega: none Michela Cinquini: none Fabio Piscaglia: Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bracco, ESAOTE, EISAI, Exact Sciences, IPSEN, MSD, Roche, Samsung, Siemens Healthineers Lorenza Rimassa: LR reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibro-gen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks Laura Romanini: none Anna Pecorelli: none Rodolfo Sacco: none Marta Scorsetti: none Luca Viganò: none Alessandro Vitale: none Franco Trevisani:AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Gilead, MSD, Roche, (Copyright © 2023 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Implantable hearing devices represent a modern and innovative solution for hearing restoration. Over the years, these high-tech devices have increasingly evolved but their use in clinical practice is not universally agreed in the scientific literature. Congresses, meetings, conferences, and consensus statements to achieve international agreement have been made. This work follows this line and aims to answer unsolved questions regarding examinations, selection criteria and surgery for implantable hearing devices., Materials and Methods: A Consensus Working Group was established by the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology. A method group performed a systematic review for each single question to identify the current best evidence on the topic and to guide a multidisciplinary panel in developing the statements., Results: Twenty-nine consensus statements were approved by the Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology. These were associated with 4 key area subtopics regarding pre-operative tests, otological, audiological and surgical indications., Conclusions: This consensus can be considered a further step forward to establish realistic guidelines on the debated topic of implantable hearing devices., (Copyright © 2024 Società Italiana di Otorinolaringoiatria e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale, Rome, Italy.)

Summary: Background. International guidelines suggested skin tests with Polyethylene-glycol (PEG) and polysorbate 80 (PS-80), to investigate a possible hypersensitivity to these excipients either to identify subjects at risk of developing allergic reactions to Covid-19 vaccines, or in patients with suspected IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions (HR) to the Covid-19 vaccine. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of PEG and PS sensitization in patients with a clinical history of HR to drugs containing PEG/PS and in patients with a suspected Covid-19 vaccine immediate HR. Methods. This was a multicenter retrospective study conducted by allergists belonging to 20 Italian medical centers. Skin testing was performed in 531 patients with either a clinical history of suspected hypersensitivity reaction (HR) to drugs containing PEG and/or PS-80 (group 1:362 patient) or a suspected HR to Covid-19 vaccines (group 2: 169 patient), as suggested by the AAIITO/SIAAIC guidelines for the "management of patients at risk of allergic reactions to Covid-19 vaccines" [1]. Results. 10/362 (0.02%) had positive skin test to one or both excipients in group 1, 12/169 (7.1%) in group 2 (p less than 0.01). In group 2 HRs to Covid-19 vaccines were immediate in 10/12 of cases and anaphylaxis occurred in 4/12 of patients. Conclusions. The positivity of skin test with PEG and or PS before vaccination is extremely rare and mostly replaceable by an accurate clinical history. Sensitization to PEG and PS has to be investigated in patients with a previous immediate HR to a Covid-19 vaccine, in particular in patients with anaphylaxis.

Introduction: The Italian Medicines Agency indicates that about 5% of hospital admissions are due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Several factors are recognized to be associated with an increased risk for ADRs, such as the female gender and polytherapy. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the suspected ADRs reported by patients during the anamnestic interview at the Allergy Unit., Patients and Methods: ALLERG-RAF study is a retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients evaluated in the Allergy Unit of ASST Spedali Civili and the University of Brescia from 2000 to 2016. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and medical consultation requested for suspected ADRs. Data relating to the patient's intrinsic characteristics, the drug supposed to be the cause, and the prescribed pharmacological therapy were collected. Pseudonymized data from each patient were collected in an informatics database., Results: From 2000 to 2016, 35,817 accesses to the Allergy Unit were made, and 2,171 unique events related to a suspected ADR were collected in 1,840 patients. More than two-thirds of the reports concerned females (70.4%). Antibiotics were involved in the majority of the self-reported suspected ADRs (48.7%), particularly beta-lactams (61.1%). Anti-inflammatory drugs, mainly NSAIDs, were second in incidence and suspected in 25.2% of reports. As a site of ADR manifestation, most of the reported reactions involve the skin. No clinical sequelae were reported., Conclusions: Our results underline the importance of patient reporting in pharmacovigilance. Furthermore, gender gap data emphasizes the importance of the gender-specific medicine approach., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) revolution is rapidly moving from metastatic to early-stage, however, the impact of clinicopathological variables and optimal treatment sequencing remain unclear., Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with ICI as single agent or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (PCT) were included. Primary outcomes were pathological complete response (pCR), event free survival (EFS) (neoadjuvant/perioperative), and disease-free survival (DFS) (adjuvant). Secondary outcomes were major pathological response (MPR), overall survival (OS), toxicity, surgical outcomes (neoadjuvant/perioperative); OS and toxicity (adjuvant). An additional secondary endpoint was to compare EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative strategies., Results: 8 RCTs (2 neoadjuvant, 4 perioperative, 2 adjuvant) (4661 participants) were included. Neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI+PCT significantly improved pCR, EFS, OS, MPR and R0 resection compared to PCT. Adjuvant ICI significantly improved DFS compared to placebo. There was a significant subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status (χ 2 = 10.72, P = 0.005), pCR (χ 2 = 17.80, P < 0.0001), and stage (χ 2 = 4.46, P = 0.003) for EFS. No difference according to PD-L1 status was found for pCR, with 14% of patients having PD-L1 negative tumors still experiencing a pCR. No interaction by PD-L1 status was found for DFS upon adjuvant ICI. Indirect comparison showed no difference in EFS and OS between neoadjuvant and perioperative ICI+PCT., Conclusions: PD-L1 status, pCR and stage impact on survival upon neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI. The restriction of neoadjuvant/perioperative ICI to PD-L1 + patients could preclude pCR and long-term benefit in the PD-L1- subgroup. Neoadjuvant and perioperative could be equivalent strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: T.C. reports (over the past 36 months) speaker fees/honoraria from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Medscape, IDEOlogy Health, Physicians' Education Resource® LLC (PER®), OncLive, PeerView and Clinical Care Options (CCO); advisory role/consulting fees from MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck & Co., Genentech, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc. and Regeneron; institutional research funding from MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; and travel, food and/or beverage expenses from Physicians' Education Resource® LLC (PER®), Dava Oncology, SITC, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, IDEOlogy Health, OncLive, AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb.M.C.G. reports AstraZeneca, Abion, MSD International GmbH, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S.p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Mirati, Daiichi Sankyo, Regeneron, Merck, Blueprint, Jansenn, Sanofi, AbbVie, BeiGenius, Oncohost, Medscape G.V. is consultant for Ab Medica, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, outside the submitted work R.F. reports advisory board for MSD and advisory board for BeiGene M.R. declares grants or contracts from AstraZeneca and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly, PANAVANCE, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Viatris, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier, SOTIO, and Baxter. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of cancer, with a high impact on the public health burden and social costs. Despite the overall prognosis for patients with BCC being excellent, if lesions are allowed to progress, or in a small subset of cases harboring an intrinsically aggressive biological behavior, it can result in local spread and significant morbidity, and conventional treatments (surgery and radiotherapy) may be challenging. When a BCC is not amenable to either surgery or radiotherapy with a reasonable curative intent, or when metastatic spread occurs, systemic treatments with Hedgehog inhibitors are available. These guidelines were developed, applying the GRADE approach, on behalf of the Italian Association of Medical Oncologists (AIOM) to assist clinicians in treating patients with BCC. They contain recommendations with regard to the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, from primitive tumors to those locally advanced or metastatic, addressing the aspects of BCC management considered as priorities by a panel of experts selected by AIOM and other national scientific societies. The use of these guidelines in everyday clinical practice should improve patient care., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Primary and incisional ventral hernias are significant public health issues for their prevalence, variability of professional practices, and high costs associated with the treatment In 2019, the Board of Directors of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted the development of new guidelines on the laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias, according to the new national regulation. In 2022, the guideline was accepted by the government agency, and it was published, in Italian, on the SNLG website. Here, we report the adopted methodology and the guideline's recommendations, as established in its diffusion policy. This guideline is produced according to the methodology indicated by the SNGL and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Fifteen recommendations were produced as a result of 4 PICO questions. The level of recommendation was conditional for 12 of them and conditional to moderate for one. This guideline's strengths include relying on an extensive systematic review of the literature and applying a rigorous GRADE method. It also has several limitations. The literature on the topic is continuously and rapidly evolving; our results are based on findings that need constant re-appraisal. It is focused only on minimally invasive techniques and cannot consider broader issues (e.g., diagnostics, indication for surgery, pre-habilitation)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting the duration of ICIs (alone or in combination with standard of care (SoC)) across various solid tumors. Overall, we identified 28,417 records through database searching. Based on the eligibility criteria, 57 studies were identified for the quantitative synthesis, including 22,977 patients receiving ICIs (with or without SoC). Prolonged ICI correlated with better overall survival (OS) than 2yICI in patients with melanoma (HR:1.55; 95%CI: 1.22,1.98), while 2yICI-SoC led to better OS than prolonged ICI-SoC in patients with NSCLC (HR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.68,0.89). Prospective randomized trials are needed to assess the most appropriate duration of ICIs. OBJECTIVE: No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here, we assessed the optimal treatment duration for ICIs in solid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged ICIs administration does not seem to improve the outcomes of patients with NSCLC an RCC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors indicate no financial relationship., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) entered the market in the early 2000s and their use has increased thereafter. Several retrospective cohort studies and single surgeon series reported benefits with the use of ADMs. However, robust evidence supporting these advantages is lacking. There is the need to define the role for ADMs in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) after mastectomy., Methods: A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints, and establish recommendation for the use of ADMs for subpectoral one-/two-stage IBBR (compared with no ADM use) for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: the panel members suggest subpectoral one- or two-stage IBBR either with ADMs or without ADMs for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction (with very low certainty of evidence)., Conclusions: The systematic review has revealed a very low certainty of evidence for most of the important outcomes in ADM-assisted IBBR and the absence of standard tools for evaluating clinical outcomes. Forty-five percent of panel members expressed a conditional recommendation either in favor of or against the use of ADMs in subpectoral one- or two-stages IBBR for adult women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. Future subgroup analyses could help identify relevant clinical and pathological factors to select patients for whom one technique could be preferable to another., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Approximately 5-10% of unselected breast cancer (BC) patients retain a hereditary predisposition related to a germline mutation in BRCA1/2 genes. The poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib have been granted marketing authorization by both FDA and EMA for adults with BRCA1/2 germline mutations and HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced BC based on the results from the phase III OlympiAd and EMBRACA trials., Methods: The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Breast Cancer addressed two critical clinical questions, adopting the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Evidence to Decision framework (EtD), to develop recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related triple-negative (clinical question 1) and hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- (clinical question 2) advanced BC., Results: Two studies were eligible (OlympiAd and EMBRACA). For both clinical questions, the Panel judged the benefit/harm balance probably in favor of the intervention, given the favorable impact in terms of PFS, ORR, and QoL at an acceptable cost in terms of toxicity; the overall certainty of the evidence was low. The panel's final recommendations were conditional in favor of PARP-inhibitors over single-agent chemotherapy in both HR+/HER2-and triple-negative BC. Finally, the Panel identified and discussed areas of uncertainty calling for further exploration., Conclusions: The Panel of AIOM BC Clinical Practice Guideline provided clinical recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related HER2-advanced BC by adopting the GRADE methodology., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest FM personal fee from Roche, Novartis and Gilead outside the submitted work. MVD: personal fees from Eli Lilly, MSD, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, outside the submitted work; CC: consultan-cy/advisory role/speaker bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Gilead, MSD, Seagen, outside the submitted work; FM: Fees for advisory board participation; Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, SeaGen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, PUMA, outside the submitted work; LDM: grants from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfiz-er, personal fees from Genomic health, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees from Seagen, personal fees and non-financial support from Eisai, personal fees from Ipsen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work; AZ: fees for advisory board; Lilly, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, SeaGen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, ExactSciences; LB: honoraria, consulting or advisory role Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics; research Funding Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis, all outside the submitted work; CM: personal consultancy fees from Bayer, Roche, Astrazeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess whether the use of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) in systematic reviews (SRs) adheres to RoB2 guidance., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from 2019 to May 2021 to identify SRs using RoB2. We analyzed methods and results sections to see whether risk of bias was assessed at outcome measure level and applied to primary outcomes of the SR as per RoB2 guidance. The relation between SR characteristics and adequacy of RoB2 use was examined by logistic regression analysis., Results: Two hundred-eight SRs were included. We could assess adherence in 137 SRs as 12 declared using RoB2 but actually used RoB1 and 59 did not report the number of primary outcomes. The tool usage was adherent in 69.3% SRs. Considering SRs with multiple primary outcomes, adherence dropped to 28.8%. We found a positive association between RoB2 guidance adherence and the methodological quality of the reviews assessed by AMSTAR2 (p-for-trend 0.007). Multivariable regression analysis suggested journal impact factor [first quartile vs. other quartiles] was associated with RoB2 adherence (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16-0.72)., Conclusions: Many SRs did not adhere to RoB2 guidance as they applied the tool at the study level rather than at the outcome measure level. Lack of adherence was more likely among low and very low quality reviews., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The early crossing of survival curves in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with immune checkpoint blockers suggests an excess of mortality in the first months of treatment. However, the exact estimation of the early death (ED) rate, the comparison between ED upon immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) alone or in combination with other agents and the impact of tumour type, and PD-L1 expression on ED are unknown., Methods: RCTs comparing ICI alone (ICI-only group) or in combination with other non-ICI therapies (ICI-OT group) (experimental arms) versus non-ICI treatments (control arm) were included. ED was defined as death within the first 3 months of treatment. The primary outcome was the comparison of ED between experimental and control arms, and the secondary outcome was the comparison of ED risk between ICI-only and ICI-OT. ED rates estimated by risk ratio (RR) were pooled by random effect model., Results: A total of 56 RCTs (40,215 participants, 14 cancer types) were included. ED occurred in 14.2% and 6.7% of patients in ICI-only and ICI-OT groups, respectively. ED risk significantly increased with ICI-only (RR: 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.57) versus non-ICI therapies, while it was lower with ICI-OT versus non-ICI treatments (RR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90). ED risk was significantly higher upon ICI-only compared to ICI-OT (RR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.26-1.95). Gastric and urothelial carcinoma were at higher risk of ED. PD-L1 expression and ICI drug classes were not associated with ED., Conclusions: ED upon first-line ICI is a clinically relevant phenomenon across solid malignancies, not predictable by PD-L1 expression but preventable through the addition of other treatments to ICI., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Prof Matteo Lambertini: advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Astrazeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead and speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Ipsen, Libbs, Knight. Dr Raimondo Di Liello: consultant Janssen, educational Astellas. Dr Martina Imbimbo: independent safety board member for Immatics. Dr Carminia Maria Della Corte: advisory board for MSD and Astrazeneca. Prof Floriana Morgillo: BMS, MSD, Astrazeneca, Incyte (Consultory/Advisory relationship). Dr Giuseppe Lo Russo: personal fees from AstraZeneca, Italfarmaco, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; support for attending meetings/travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Italfarmaco, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; and participation as a DSMB or advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi. Dr Claudia Proto: personal fees from BMS and MSD. Dr Arsela Prelaj: personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca and BMS. Dr Diego Signorelli: personal fees from Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. Prof Fortunato Ciardiello: Merck, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, Symphogen, Pfizer (Consultant/Avisory relationship), Roche, Merck, Amgen, Bayer, Ipsen (Research funding). Dr Nathalie Chaput: sponsored research from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, Sanofi, Cytune Pharma, Gilead, Servier. Lectures and educational activities: Gilead and Servier. Dr Jordi Remon: advisory board: MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Astrazeneca, Roche; Bayer, Janssen. Speaker: Pfizer, Janssen; travel reimbursement: Ose immunotherapeutics, BMS, Astrazeneca, Roche. Prof Benjamin Besse: grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Onxeo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Inivata, AbbVie, Amgen, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Ignyta, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Nektar, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Therapeutics, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, OSE Immunotherapeutics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Servier, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. Prof Filippo De Braud: Consultant Advisory Board: Roche, EMD Serono, NMS Nerviano Medical Science, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis, Incyte, BMS, Menarini. Speaker: BMS, Healthcare Research & Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck Group, ACCMED, Nadirex, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi, Roche, AMGEN, Incyte, Dephaforum. Principal Investigator for Novartis, F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd, BMS, Ignyta Operating INC, Merck Sharp & Dohme Spa, Kymab, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD, MedImmune LCC, Exelixis Inc., LOXO Oncology Incorporated, DAICHI SANKIO Dev. Limited, Basilea Pharmaceutica International AG, Janssen-Cilag International NV, Merck KGAA. Prof Marina Chiara Garassino: personal financial interests with the following organisations: AstraZeneca, MSD International GmbH, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S. p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; institutional financial interests with the following organisations: Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer (MISP), AstraZeneca, MSD International GmbH, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S. p.A, Celgene, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tiziana, Foundation Medicine; funding from the following organisations: AIRC, AIFA, Italian Moh, TRANSCAN. All the other authors have no conflicts to declare. Dr Roberto Ferrara: advisory board for Beigene and MSD. All the other authors (Dr Giuseppe Viscardi, Dr Antonino Carmelo Tralongo, Dr Francesco Massari, Dr Veronica Mollica, Dr Alessandro Rizzo, Dr Francesca Comito, Dr Salvatore Alfieri, Dr Vittorio Simeon, Dr Alessandro De Toma, Dr Giulia Galli, Dr Valter Torri, Dr Michela Cinquini) have no conflicts to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals., Methods: For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics., Results: Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7)., Conclusions: More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals., Trial Registration: Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To systematically review the evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of goal-oriented care against standard care for multimorbid adults., Data Sources/study Setting: The literature presenting the results of randomized trials assessing the outcomes of goal-oriented care compared with usual care for adults with multimorbidity., Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Collection/extraction Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL, trial registries such as ClinicalTrial.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the references of eligible trials and relevant reviews. Goal-oriented care was defined as an approach that engages patients, establishes personal goals, and sets targets for patients and clinicians to plan a course of action and measure outcome. We reviewed 228 trials, and 12 were included. We extracted outcome data on quality of life, hospital admission, patients' satisfaction, patient and caregiver burden. Risk of bias was assessed and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE., Principal Findings: No study was fully free of bias. No effect was found on quality of life (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.16) and hospital admission (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.17). There was a very small effect for patients' satisfaction (SMD: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.29) and caregiver burden (SMD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.00). Certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes., Conclusions: No firm conclusions can be reached about the effects of goal-oriented care for multimorbid adults. Future research should overcome the shortcomings of trials assessed in this meta-analysis. Sound application of the indications for research of complex healthcare interventions is warranted., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required., Objectives: To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS., Search Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews., Selection Criteria: We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence., Main Results: We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female.  The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I 2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I 2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

This article is about current challenges to evidence-based medicine (EMB) in Italy. The authors, who share a 20-year commitment to the field of clinical research, discuss what they define as a phase of "stagnation" in practicing and teaching methods and research tactics, both in clinical and academic settings. Early success of EBM cultural movement was not persistent. The authors reason about how the teaching of EBM has remained a niche, concerning few professionals compared to the needs of the country. The authors identify some reasons that might have led to inconsistent attention to research methodology and address ways to strengthen the contribution of academic medicine to clinical research.