Search

Background: Scientific societies recommend early interaction between oncologic and supportive care, but there is still a lack of systematic evaluations regarding symptoms from the perspective of oncologists.Patients and Methods: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the PERSONS score, in both "simultaneous care" and "supportive care" settings using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) as a comparator.Results: From November 2017 to April 2018, 67 and 110 consecutive patients were enrolled in outpatient and home care cohorts, respectively. The final study population comprised 163 patients. There were no significant changes over time in the total PERSONS scores and total ESAS scale. The intra-interviewer reliability (ICC2,1) and inter-interviewer reliability (ICC2,k) showed good reproducibility (test-retest) in each group of patients: 0.60 (0.49-0.70) and 0.82 (0.75-0.87), respectively, for the home care patients and 0.73 (0.62-0.81) and 0.89 (0.83-0.93), respectively, for the outpatient cohort. There were high correlations between PERSONS and ESAS, both at the baseline and final assessments. The mean PERSONS and ESAS scores between the home care patients and outpatients were not different at the baseline and final assessments. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the PERSONS total score revealed good diagnostic ability. Area under the curve (AUC) was 0.825 and 0.805 for improvement and deterioration, respectively.Conclusions: The PERSONS score is an easy to apply tool for symptom assessment. Importantly, the PERSONS score showed high concordance with the established ESAS scale and, therefore, provides an alternative for everyday use in supportive care assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the first steps to early integrate palliative care into oncology practice is a timely and efficient evaluation of symptoms (Bakitas et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2015; Temel et al., 2010). In a recent position paper, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology tells oncologists that they "must be able to prevent, recognize, measure, and treat all cancer-related symptoms" (Zagonel et al., 2017). Major international scientific societies such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology have often defined the key role of symptoms evaluation and management to force the integration of palliative care into oncology (Davis et al., 2015; Ferrel et al., 2017). Nevertheless, a recent survey conducted by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology shows that only 20% of oncologists regularly uses valid tools to evaluate symptoms, 45% exclusively use them in the context of clinical trials, 30% use them only occasionally, and 5% never use them (Zagonel et al., 2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to potentially immune-escaping virus variants and waning immunity, a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination dose is increasingly recommended. However, data in patients with cancer are limited. We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody levels after the third vaccination dose in 439 patients with cancer and 41 health care workers (HCW) at an academic centre in Austria and a rural community hospital in Italy. Adverse events were retrieved from questionnaires. Overall, 439 patients and 41 HCW were included. SARS-CoV-2 infections were observed in 62/439 (14.1%) patients before vaccination and in 5/439 (1.1%) patients after ≥1 dose. Longitudinal analysis revealed a decrease of antibody levels between 3 and 6 months after second vaccination in patients with solid tumours (p < 0.001) and haematological malignancies without anti-B cell therapies (p < 0.001). After the third dose, anti-S levels increased compared to the first/second dose. Patients receiving B cell-targeted agents had lower antibody levels than patients with haematological malignancies undergoing other treatments (p < 0.001) or patients with solid tumours (p < 0.001). Moreover, anti-S levels correlated with CD19+ (B cell) and CD56+ (NK cell) counts in peripheral blood. The most frequent adverse events after the third dose were local pain (75/160, 46.9%), fatigue (25/160, 15.6%) and fever/chills (16/160, 10.0%). Patients with cancer had lower anti-S levels than HCW (p = 0.015). This study in patients with cancer shows improved antibody levels after the third vaccination dose at an acceptable side-effect profile. Lower antibody levels than in controls underline the need for further follow-up studies and dedicated trials. • Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels diminished over time after the second vaccination. • Antibody levels increased after the third dose, supporting its administration. • Patients under B cell-targeting therapy showed considerably lower antibody levels. • Antibody levels correlated with CD19+ and CD56+ peripheral blood cell counts. • Lower antibody levels than in controls underline the need for further studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]