Search

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare organizations, necessitating a rapid transition from in-person to virtual care. Our study explored the feasibility of a mixed in-person/telerehabilitation intervention for cancer patients and its effects on cancer-related fatigue (CRF), quality of life (QoL), physical function, patient satisfaction, and perceived usefulness., Methods: TRACE 2020 is an observational prospective study that enrolled adult cancer patients, between January 2021 and March 2023, who were eligible for a rehabilitation program to be provided also in telerehabilitation. Patients were assessed at baseline and after the rehabilitation program. Adherence to sessions, reasons for non-adherence and adverse events were collected., Results: Of the 23 patients enrolled, 87% received a mixed intervention, with an average of 60% in-person sessions and 40% telerehabilitation sessions. Adherence was very high (91%). Evaluation scales showed an improvement in CRF, QoL, and lower limb strength and a relevant increase in patients' level of physical activity (PA). Most patients reported good satisfaction; the few criticisms mainly concerned difficulties in connectivity, lack of physical contact and difficulties in understanding how to perform exercises during telerehabilitation sessions. The physiotherapist underlined the usefulness of the innovative approach and suggested ways to facilitate future implementation., Conclusion: A mixed intervention including telerehabilitation is feasible and accepted by cancer patients. It may have a positive effect on their CRF, QoL, and level of PA and render patient care more flexible. The findings suggest what characteristics the target population for telerehabilitation should have, in order to integrate telerehabilitation in standard care for cancer patients., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Complete surgical resection of gastric cancer is potentially curative, but long-term survival is poor., Methods: Patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach of stages IB, II, IIIA and B, or IV (T4N2M0) and treated with potentially curative surgery were randomly assigned to follow-up alone or to intravenous treatment with four cycles (repeated every 21 days) of PELF (cisplatin [40 mg/m(2), on days 1 and 5], epirubicin [30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 5], L-leucovorin [100 mg/m(2), days 1-4], and 5-fluorouracil [300 mg/m(2), days 1-4] in a hospital setting. Frequencies and severity of adverse events were determined. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between the treatment arms using Kaplan-Meier analysis and a Cox proportional hazards regression model. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: From January 1995 through September 2000, 258 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n = 130) or surgery alone (n = 128). Patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Among those who received chemotherapy, grade 3 or 4 toxic effects including vomiting, mucositis, and diarrhea were experienced by 21.1%, 8.4%, and 11.8% of patients, respectively. Leucopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or 4 were experienced by 20.3%, 3.3%, and 4.2% of patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 72.8 months, 128 patients (49.6%) experienced recurrence and 139 (53.9%) deaths were observed, one toxicity-related. Relative to treatment with surgery alone, adjuvant chemotherapy did not increase disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] of recurrence = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.27) or overall survival (HR of death = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.26)., Conclusions: Our results failed to provide proof of an effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with PELF on overall survival or disease-free survival. The estimated effect of chemotherapy (10% reduction in the hazard of death or relapse) is modest and consistent with the results of meta-analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy without platinum agents.

The historical evolution and the hydro-geologic characteristic of the area of Cassino are described. The great availability of water in this area deserves much concern and needs a better utilizing as regards its hydro-geologic equilibrium and its environmental protection.

Background: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is generally considered the most active treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. The combination of cisplatin and etoposide had for some time been the standard treatment at our center. Of the other active regimens, cisplatin in combination with mitomycin-C, vindesine or ifosfamide (MVP or MIC) showed the highest response rates. We decided to perform a comparative trial of the three 'best' regimens in order to define a possible standard regimen in advanced NSCLC., Materials and Methods: From May 1989 to April 1992, 393 consecutive, previously untreated NSCLC patients, stages IIIB and IV, were randomized to receive either cisplatin (120 mg/sqm day 1) + etoposide (100 mg/sqm days 1-3) every 3 weeks (PE) or cisplatin (120 mg/sqm every 4 weeks) + mitomycin-C (8 mg/sqm days 1-29-71) + vindesine (3 mg/sqm days 1-8-15-22) (MVP) or cisplatin (120 mg/sqm day 1) + mitomycin-C (6 mg/sqm day 1) + ifosfamide (3 mg/sqm day 2) every 3 weeks (MIC). Of these, 382 were evaluable for survival and 360 for response., Results: Response rates were statistically higher for both MIC (40%) and MVP (36%) than for the PE arm (23%). Survival estimates analyzed by the log-rank test showed a significant benefit (p < 0.04) for patients treated with three-drug regimens (MVP; MIC) as compared to those in the PE arm. The main toxicity was myelosuppression; thrombocytopenia WHO grade 3-4 was worse in the MIC arm; nephrotoxicity grade 3-4 was also more frequent in the MIC arm., Conclusions: A three-drug cisplatin-based regimen (MVP; MIC) should be considered as reference treatment in NSCLC.