Search

Background: Until now, no robust data supported the efficacy, safety and recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Methods: The prospective multicenter observational INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors (INVIDIa-2) study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs, enrolled in 82 Italian centers from October 2019 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020. Secondary endpoints regarded ILI severity and vaccine safety., Results: The study enrolled 1279 patients; 1188 patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint analysis. Of them, 48.9% (581) received influenza vaccination. The overall ILI incidence was 8.2% (98 patients). Vaccinated patients were significantly more frequently elderly (p<0.0001), males (p=0.004), with poor European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p=0.009), affected by lung cancer (p=0.01), and by other non-cancer comorbidities (p<0.0001) when compared with unvaccinated. ILI incidence was not different basing on influenza vaccination: the time-to-ILI was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (p=0.62). ILI complications were significantly less frequent for patients receiving the vaccination (11.8% vs 38.3% in unvaccinated, p=0.002). ILI-related intravenous therapies were significantly less frequent in vaccinated patients than in unvaccinated (11.8% vs 29.8%, p=0.027). ILI lethality was, respectively, 0% in vaccinated and 4.3% in unvaccinated patients. Vaccine-related adverse events were rare and mild (1.5%, grades 1-2)., Conclusion: The INVIDIa-2 study results support a positive recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG) received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A.; also received funding outside the present study by Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi.Melissa Bersanelli received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A. (FICOG as Institution, no personal fees). She also received, outside the present work, research funding from Pfizer and Novartis (Institution); honoraria as a speaker at scientific events (personal fees) by Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis and Pfizer; as consultant for advisory role (personal fees) by Novartis, BMS and Pfizer; for copyright transfer by Sciclone Pharmaceuticals.Ugo De Giorgi has served as a consultant for Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Pharmamar; he received research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Sanofi; and received travel funds from BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche during the conduct of the study.Massimo Di Maio reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck Sharp MSD, Ipsen, Roche S.p.A., Eli-Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis; he also received research funding from Novartis.Vieri Scotti participated, with personal fees, to advisory boards and speaker’s bureaus for Roche S.p.A. Saverio Cinieri declared international board for Eli Lilly international. Paolo Andrea Zucali acts in a consultant or advisory role for Sanofi, BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Novartis, all outside the scope of work. Marcello Tiseo received speakers’ and consultants’ fee from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, and institutional research grants from Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: In Europe, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had its first epicenter in Italy. Despite a significant mortality rate, the severity of most cases of COVID-19 infection ranges from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic, and silent infection affects a still-unknown proportion of the general population. No information is available on the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection among patients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment during the pandemic., Materials and Methods: From April 1, 2020, to the end of the same month, 560 consecutive patients with cancer, asymptomatic for COVID-19 and on anticancer treatment at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2. We implemented a two-step diagnostics, including the rapid serological immunoassay for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) G/IgM and the nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test in case of seropositivity to identify SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers., Results: In 560 patients, 172 (31%) resulted positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies, regardless of different type of cancer, stage, and treatment. The Ig-seropositive patients were then tested with RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swabs, and 38% proved to be SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. At an early follow-up, in the 97 SARS-CoV-2-seropositive/RT-PCR-negative patients who continued their anticancer therapies, only one developed symptomatic COVID-19 illness., Conclusion: Among patients with cancer, the two-step diagnostics is feasible and effective for SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers detection and might support optimal cancer treatment strategies at both the individual and the population level. The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in cases of RT-PCR-negative patients., Implications for Practice: This is the first study evaluating the prevalence and clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 silent infection in actively treated patients with cancer, during the epidemic peak in one of the worst areas of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lacking national and international recommendations for the detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a pragmatic and effective two-step diagnostics was implemented to ascertain SARS-CoV-2 silent carriers. In this series, consisting of consecutive and unselected patients with cancer, the prevalence of both SARS-CoV-2-seropositive patients and silent carriers is substantial (31% and 10%, respectively). The early safety profile of the different anticancer therapies, in patients previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, supports the recommendation to continue the active treatment, at least in case of RT-PCR-negative patients., (© 2020 AlphaMed Press.)

Background & Aims: Sorafenib is associated with multiple adverse events (AEs), potentially causing its permanent interruption. It is unknown how physicians' experience has impacted on the management of these AEs and consequently on clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess whether AE management changed over time and if these modifications impacted on treatment duration and overall survival (OS)., Methods: We analysed the prospectively collected data of 338 consecutive patients who started sorafenib between January 2008 and December 2017 in 3 tertiary care centres in Italy. Patients were divided according to the starting date: Group A (2008-2012; n = 154), and Group B (2013-2017, n = 184). Baseline and follow-up data were compared. In the OS analysis, patients who received second-line treatments were censored when starting the new therapy., Results: Baseline characteristics, AEs, and radiological response were consistent across groups. Patients in Group B received a lower median daily dose (425 vs. 568 mg/day, p <0.001) due to more frequent dose modifications. However, treatment duration was longer (5.8 vs. 4.1 months, p = 0.021) with a trend toward a higher cumulative dose in Group B. Notably, the OS was also higher (12.0 vs. 11.0 months, p = 0.003) with a sharp increase in the 2-year survival rate (28.1 vs. 18.4%, p = 0.003) in Group B. Multivariate time-dependent Cox regression analysis confirmed later period of treatment (2013-2017) as an independent predictor of survival (HR 0.728; 95%CI 0.581-0.937; p = 0.013). Unconsidered confounders were unlikely to affect these results at the sensitivity analysis., Conclusions: Experience in the management of sorafenib-related AEs prolongs treatment duration and survival. This factor should be considered in the design of future randomised clinical trials including a sorafenib treatment arm, as an underestimate of sample size may derive., Lay Summary: Sorafenib has been the standard frontline systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma for over a decade. Its tolerability is limited by different adverse events, which might lead to its permanent discontinuation in a sizeable proportion of patients. After a careful analysis of potential confounders, we demonstrated that the physicians' experience in managing adverse events related to sorafenib has improved over time, with longer treatment periods and less permanent discontinuation for toxicities. More importantly, these improvements also translated into longer patient survival. Our results have relevant repercussions in clinical practice and in the design of future clinical trials., (Copyright © 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In 2015, we published a study on a small series of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated chronically with metformin for type II diabetes mellitus (DM2) who showed a poorer response to sorafenib. The aim of the present study was to validate the prognostic significance of metformin in HCC patients treated with sorafenib, providing a biological rationale for the mechanism of resistance to sorafenib in patients on chronic metformin therapy, and to clarify the role of sirtuin-3 (SIRT-3), a protein involved in metabolic diseases and acknowledged as a tumour suppressor in HCC, in this resistance., Patients and Methods: We analysed 279 patients consecutively treated with sorafenib for the clinical analysis. Of the 86 (30%) patients with DM2, 52 (19%) were on chronic treatment with metformin and 34 (12%) with insulin. We included 43 patients with HCC for the biological study: 19 (44.1%) were diabetic and 14 (73.7%) of these received metformin for DM2. SIRT-3 expression was investigated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples., Results: In HCC patients undergoing chronic treatment with metformin, the use of sorafenib was associated with poor progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (1.9 and 6.6 months, respectively) compared to 3.7 months and 10.8 months, respectively, for patients without DM2 and 8.4 months and 16.6 months, respectively, for patients on insulin (P < .0001). We also observed that SIRT-3 protein expression was significantly higher in patients treated with metformin than in those not taking this medication (65% versus 25%, respectively) (P = .013)., Conclusions: Our findings could be attributed to increased tumour aggressiveness and resistance to sorafenib caused by chronic treatment with metformin., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the quality of CT scan request and report forms in four Italian hospitals in three different Regions. A sample of 800 request forms and corresponding reports in four hospitals were evaluated. Half of the analysed reports involved inpatients while the other half involved outpatients. The four participating hospitals were all of different typology. Study results show that the request forms do not always contain important information such as the suspected diagnosis or name of the requesting physician. Quality indicators of the examined documents were evaluated in relation to their impact on clinical safety.

The authors examine some critical aspects relating to the management of sensitive personal data of individuals (third parties) other than the patients. The issue raised is that of how consent can be obtained for treatment of third party personal data when the subject is not available to give consent, and what should be done if consent is not given. In some cases it can be difficult to decide whose interests should prevail. The authors recommend using caution when processing third party personal data and to collect third party information only if strictly indispensable. They also discuss what should be done when a third party requests information regarding whether personal data, of which that individual is the data subject, is being processed by the health institution. The authors conclude that more time will be required before the full protection of personal information is achieved.

As part of an extensive investigation into the use of disinfectants in hospitals, data from 189 hospitals in the north of Italy, including 38 in the Emilia-Romagna region, were examined. Eleven fields of employment were assessed. It was found that benzalkonium chloride was primarily used for disinfection of the operative field, wounds, excoriations, sores, the skin prior to injection, surgical instruments, catheters, thermometers, and utensils. Chlorhexidine was preferred to disinfection of the hands and medical equipment. Formaldehyde was preferred for ambient surfaces, the air of confined spaces, and (in association with chlorine and its derivatives) for sanitary services and vessels. Glutaric aldehyde was preferred for apparatus fitted with lenses or optical fibres. By comparison with other parts of N. Italy. Emilia-Romagna made greater use of hydrogen peroxide for skin lesions, and alcohol for disinfection prior to transcutaneous injections.

In an investigation of the use of disinfectants in hospitals, the replies received from 338 institutions were analysed and subsequently compared with those obtained from southern Italy. It was found that benzalkonium chloride was the substance most widely used in Italy for disinfection of the surgical field, wounds, excoriations, sores, the skin prior to injections, surgical instruments, medical apparatus, catheters, thermometers and sanitary appliances, whereas chlorhexidine was preferred for disinfection of the hands, and for ambient surfaces in combination with cetrimide. Formic aldehyde was preferred for ambient surfaces, the air of confined spaces, and, in conjunction with chlorine and its derivatives, for sanitary services and their vessels. Glutaraldehyde was the substance most commonly employed for the disinfection of medical apparatus fitted with optic fibre lenses. In southern Italy, by contrast with the position in Italy as a whole, there was a greater use of chlorine and its derivatives for the disinfection of ambient surfaces, benzalkonium chloride for the disinfection and cleaning of sanitary services, vessels, and equipment with optic fibres, and alcohols for the disinfection of surgical instruments and sanitary appliances.