Search

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has triggered the disruption of health care on a global scale. With Italy tangled up in the pandemic response, oncology care has been largely diverted and cancer screenings suspended. Our multicenter Italian study aimed to evaluate whether COVID-19 has impacted access to diagnosis, staging, and treatment for patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with pre-pandemic time., Methods: All consecutive new CRC patients referred to 8 Italian oncology institutions between March and December 2020 were included. Access rate and temporal intervals between date of symptoms onset, radiological and cytohistological diagnosis, treatment start and first radiological evaluation were analyzed and compared with the same months of 2019., Results: A reduction (29%) in newly diagnosed CRC cases was seen when compared with 2019 (360 vs 506). New CRC patients in 2020 were less likely to be diagnosed with early stage (stages I-II-III) CRC (63% vs 78%, P < .01). Gender and sidedness were similar regardless of the year. The percentage of tumors with any mutation among BRAF, NRAS, and KRAS genes were significantly different between the 2 years (61% in 2020 vs 50% in 2019, P = .04). Timing of access to cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment for patients with CRC has not been negatively affected by the pandemic. Significantly shorter temporal intervals were observed between symptom onset and first oncological appointment (69 vs 79 days, P = .01) and between histological diagnosis and first oncological appointment (34 vs 42 days, P < .01) during 2020 compared with 2019. Fewer CRC cases were discussed in multidisciplinary meetings during 2020 (38% vs 50%, P = .01)., Conclusions: Our data highlight a significant drop in CRC diagnosis after COVID-19, especially for early stage disease. The study also reveals a remarkable setback in the multidisciplinary management of patients with CRC. Despite this, Italian oncologists were able to ensure diagnostic-therapeutic pathways proper operation after March 2020., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: We previously demonstrated the cumulative poor prognostic role of concomitant medications on the clinical outcome of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, creating and validating a drug-based prognostic score to be calculated before immunotherapy initiation in patients with advanced solid tumours. This 'drug score' was calculated assigning score 1 for each between proton-pump inhibitor and antibiotic administration until a month before cancer therapy initiation and score 2 in case of corticosteroid intake. The good risk group included patients with score 0, intermediate risk with score 1-2 and poor risk with score 3-4., Methods: Aiming at validating the prognostic and putative predictive ability depending on the anticancer therapy, we performed the present comparative analysis in two cohorts of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), respectively, receiving first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy through a random case-control matching and through a pooled multivariable analysis including the interaction between the computed score and the therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy)., Results: Nine hundred fifty and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. After the case-control random matching, 589 patients from the pembrolizumab cohort and 589 from the chemotherapy cohort were paired, with no statistically significant differences between the characteristics of the matched subjects. Among the pembrolizumab-treated group, good, intermediate and poor risk evaluable patients achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 50.0%, 37.7% and 23.4%, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated group, patients achieved an ORR of 37.0%, 40.0% and 32.4%, respectively (p = 0.4346). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of good, intermediate and poor risk groups was 13.9 months, 6.3 months and 2.8 months, respectively, within the pembrolizumab cohort (p < 0.0001), and 6.2 months, 6.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively, within the chemotherapy cohort (p = 0.0280). Among the pembrolizumab-treated patients, the median overall survival (OS) for good, intermediate and poor risk patients was 31.4 months, 14.5 months and 5.8 months, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated patients, it was 18.3 months, 16.8 months and 10.6 months, respectively (p = 0.0003). A similar trend was reported considering the two entire populations. At the pooled analysis, the interaction term between the score and the therapeutic modality was statistically significant with respect to ORR (p = 0.0052), PFS (p = 0.0003) and OS (p < 0.0001), confirming the significantly different effect of the score within the two cohorts., Conclusion: Our 'drug score' showed a predictive ability with respect to ORR in the immunotherapy cohort only, suggesting it might be a useful tool for identifying patients unlikely to benefit from first-line single-agent pembrolizumab. In addition, the prognostic stratification in terms of PFS and OS was significantly more pronounced among the pembrolizumab-treated patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.B. received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and for the advisory role from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis. M.B. received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer and as a consultant for the advisory role from Novartis, BMS and Pfizer; she also received fees for copyright transfer from Sciclone Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Seqirus UK, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche S.p.A. and Sanofi Genzyme. R.G. received speaker fees and grant consultancies from AstraZeneca and Roche. J.G.J.V.A. reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD and Roche. A.F. received grant consultancies from Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. F.M. received grant consultancies from MSD and Takeda. R.C. received speaker fees from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca. C.G. received speaker fees/grant consultancies from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. M.R. received honoraria for scientific events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. E.B. received speaker and travel fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis and Roche and grant consultancies from Roche and Pfizer. M.C.G. received grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck, Bayer, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint; personal fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Incyte, Inivata, Takeda, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Daiichi Sankyo and other financial supports from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck Serono, MSD, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint. A.A. received grant consultancies from Takeda, MSD, BMJ, AstraZeneca, Roche and Pfizer. M.D.M. received research funding from Tesaro-GlaxoSmithKline and acted in a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, Janssen, Astellas, Roche and AstraZeneca. D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare; travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche and AstraZeneca and research funding (to the institution) from MSD and BMS. M.T. received honoraria from MSD, BMS, Boehringer (BI), Takeda and AstraZeneca and research funding from AstraZeneca. A.C. received speaker fees and grant consultancies from AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. All the other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastric cancer is the second highest cause of cancer mortality in the world, despite declining rates of incidence in many industrialized countries. We carried out a case-control study to evaluate whether polymorphisms of DNA repair and glutathione S-transferase (GST) genes modulate the risk of developing diffuse gastric cancer., Methods: ERCC1 118 T/C, XRCC1 399 G/A, XPD 312 G/A, XPD 751 A/C, XRCC3 241 C/T, MS 919 A/G, GSTP1 105 A/G, GSTM1-null/positive and GSTT1-null/positive genotypes were obtained for a series of 126 Helicobacter pylori-negative diffuse gastric cancer patients and 144 Helicobacter pylori-negative controls sampled from the population of Marche, an area with high gastric cancer risk in central Italy., Results: GSTP1 105 A/G and GSTP1 105 G/G genotypes were identified as protective factors, with odds ratio (OR) of 0.4 (95% CI 0.17-0.81, p=0.01) and OR=0.58 (95% CI 0.33-1, p=0.05), respectively. GSTT1-null genotype was identified as a protective factor, with OR=0.48 (95% CI 0.22-0.99, p=0.04). There was no significant difference between cases and controls for XPD 751 A/C, ERCC1 118 T/C, XRCC3 241 C/T, XRCC1 399 G/A, XPD 312 G/A, GSTM1-null/positive and MS 919 A/G polymorphisms., Conclusions: This study suggests that GSTP1 105A/G and GSTT1-null/positive genotypes might be associated with a reduced risk for sporadic diffuse gastric cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:822-8.

We performed a case-control study to examine the relationship between MTHFR C677T gene polymorphism (MTHFR677C/T) and gastric cancer susceptibility in at-risk populations in central Italy. To explore genomic DNA hypomethylation as a potential etiologic mechanism, this phenomenon was evaluated in carriers of the MTHFR677T/T genotype and carriers of the wild-type MTHFR677C/C genotype. Lymphocyte genomic DNA from 162 gastric cancer patients and 164 controls was used for MTHFR677C/T genotyping. Unconditional regression analysis with ORs and 95% CIs was used to investigate the association of the polymorphism with disease. Genomic DNA methylation status by an established enzymatic assay that measures the DNA accepting capacity of methyl groups (inversely related to endogenous methylation) was assessed in a random sample of 40 carriers of the wild-type MTHFR677C/C genotype and 40 carriers of the MTHFR677T/T genotype. The global allelic distribution was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The MTHFR677T allele was significantly associated with gastric cancer risk with an OR of 2.49 (95% CI 1.48-4.20) in heterozygous MTHFR677C/T carriers and an OR of 2.85 (95% CI 1.52-5.35) in homozygous MTHFR677T/T carriers. This risk association was retained in subgroup analyses by tumor histotype and location. Genomic DNA hypomethylation status in MTHFR677T/T carriers was significantly higher than in subjects with wild-type MTHF677C/C genotype (p = 0.012). In the studied population, MTHFR677T played the role of a moderate-penetrance gastric cancer susceptibility allele. Possession of the MTHFR677T/T genotype was significantly associated with genomic DNA hypomethylation. These findings deserve further investigation in the context of novel strategies for gastric cancer prevention., (Copyright 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)