Search

The publisher regrets that the collaborators for this paper were not listed as such within the author details of the published paper. The collaborators were published in the Acknowledgements and are as follows: Alberto Farolfi, Silvia Ruscelli, Martina Valgiusti, Sara Pini, Marina Faedi, Department of Medical Oncology, IRST IRCCS, Meldola; Angela Ragazzini, Unit of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, IRST IRCCS, Meldola; Cristina Pittureri and Elena Amaducci, Palliative Care and Hospice Unit, AUSL Romagna, Cesena; Irene Guglieri, Psychooncology Service, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV – IRCCS, Padua; Francesca Bergamo, Sara Lonardi, Department of Clinical and Experimental Oncology, Medical Oncology 1, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV – IRCCS, Padua; Camilla Di Nunzio, Medical Oncology Unit, Oncology–Hematology Department, Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza; Monica Bosco, Palliative Care Unit, Oncology–Hematology Department, Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza; Barbara Bocci, Medical Oncology Unit, San Paolo Hospital, Milan; Alfina Bramanti and Chiara Gandini, Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia; Angela Buonadonna, Medical Oncology Unit, Aviano National Cancer Institute, Aviano; Alessandro Comandone, Medical Oncology Unit, Presidio Humanitas Gradenigo, Turin; Sonia Zoccali, Coordinamento Cure Palliative (supported by F.I.L.E., Leniterapia Italian Foundatio), Florence; Maria Simona Pino, Medical Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, S. Maria Annunziata Hospital, Florence; Davide Dalu, Palliative Care Unit, Oncology Department, L. Sacco Hospital, Milan; Pietro Sozzi, Oncology Unit, Ospedale degli Infermi, Ponderano; Alberto Gozza, Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, E.O. Galliera Hospitals, Genoa; Monica Giordano and Carla Longhi, Oncology Unit, Sant'Anna Hospital, Como; Cristina Autelitano, Palliative Care Unit, Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova – IRCCS, Reggio Emilia; Teresa Gamucci, Oncology Unit, SS Trinità Hospital Sora, ASL Frosinone, Frosinone; Cataldo Mastromauro, Oncology Unit, ULSS 12 Veneziana, Venice; Rodolfo Scognamiglio, Hospice Nazareth, Mestre; Daniela Degiovanni, Palliative Care Unit, Casale Monferrato, ASL Alessandria; Federica Negri, Medical Oncology Unit, Istituti Ospitalieri, Cremona; Augusto Caraceni, Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan; and Luigi Montanari, Palliative Care Unit Ravenna, AUSL Romagna, Italy. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Angiogenesis is a necessary process for tumor growth, progression and diffusion. In the last years many efforts have been made to understand the mechanisms necessary to the formation of new vessels in tumor tissue and how to integrate these findings in the treatment of different type of cancer. Thanks to these studies there are today many anti-angiogenic drugs with established activity in cancer and approved in clinical practice. Head and neck cancer is a common tumor worldwide that often has advanced stage at diagnosis and poor prognosis. Angiogenesis has a well recognized role in head and neck cancer progression and resistance to drugs and radiotherapy and many clinical trials has been conducted with antiangiogenic agents in this disease, even if they often showed limited efficacy. In this review we summarize the main trials published about angiogenesis in head and neck cancer with particular attention to factors involved in this process and the available data on the efficacy of treatment with anti-angiogenic agents in this disease.

The incidence of tongue cancer is increasing worldwide, and its aggressiveness remains high regardless of treatment. Genetic changes and the expression of abnormal proteins have been frequently reported in the case of head and neck cancers, but the little information that has been published concerning tongue tumours is often contradictory. This review will concentrate on the immunohistochemical expression of biomolecular markers and their relationships with clinical behaviour and prognosis. Most of these proteins are associated with nodal stage, tumour progression and metastases, but there is still controversy concerning their impact on disease-free and overall survival, and treatment response. More extensive clinical studies are needed to identify the patterns of molecular alterations and the most reliable predictors in order to develop tailored anti-tumour strategies based on the targeting of hypoxia markers, vascular and lymphangiogenic factors, epidermal growth factor receptors, intracytoplasmatic signalling and apoptosis.

Background: Previous findings suggested that bevacizumab might be able to improve response rate (RR) in colorectal cancer patients with high lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) basal levels. Methods: We conducted a phase II trial to prospectively ascertain whether bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI could have an improved clinical activity in patients with high LDH serum levels. Primary end point of the study was RR; secondary end points were median overall survival and median progression-free survival (mPFS). Results: A total of 81 patients were enrolled. No difference in terms of ORR (39% vs 31% for low vs high LDH level stratum, P=0.78) and mPFS (14.16 vs 10.29 months, HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.51–2.24, P=0.83) between the strata was observed, whereas overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients with low LDH (24.85 vs 15.14 months, HR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.14–14.61, P=0.0004). In a not-pre-planned exploratory analysis using different cut-off ranges for LDH, we observed RR up to 70%, with no improvement in progression-free survival or OS. Conclusions: The CENTRAL trial failed to demonstrate that high LDH levels were related to a significantly improved RR in patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. The LDH serum levels should then no further be investigated as a predictive factor in this setting.

Aim Early palliative care (EPC) in oncology has shown sparse evidence of a positive impact on patient outcomes, quality of care outcomesand costs. Patients and methods Data for this secondary analysis were taken from a trial of 207 outpatients with metastatic pancreatic cancer randomly assigned to receive standard cancer care plus on-demand EPC (standard arm) or standard cancer care plus systematic EPC (interventional arm). After 20 months’ follow-up, 149 (80%) had died. Outcome measures were frequency, type and timing of chemotherapy administration, use of resources, place of death and overall survival. Results Some indices of end-of-life (EoL) aggressiveness had a favourable impact from systematic EPC. Interventional arm patients showed higher use of hospice services: a significantly longer median and mean period of hospice care (P=0.025 for both indexes) and a significantly higher median and mean number of hospice admissions (both P&nbsp

Background Early palliative care (EPC) in oncology has been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcome, quality-of-care outcomes, and costs. However, the optimal way for activating EPC has yet to be defined. Methods This prospective, multicentre, randomised study was conducted on 207 outpatients with metastatic or locally advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomised to receive ‘standard cancer care plus on-demand EPC’ (n=100) or ‘standard cancer care plus systematic EPC’ (n=107). Primary outcome was change in quality of life (QoL) evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Hepatobiliary questionnaire between baseline (T0) and after 12 weeks (T1), in particular the integration of physical, functional, and Hepatic Cancer Subscale (HCS) combined in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Patient mood, survival, relatives' satisfaction with care, and indicators of aggressiveness of care were also evaluated. Findings The mean changes in TOI score and HCS score between T0 and T1 were −4.47 and −0.63, with a difference between groups of 3.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10–7.57) (p=0.041), and −2.23 and 0.28 (difference between groups of 2.51, 95% CI 0.40–4.61, p=0.013), in favour of interventional group. QoL scores at T1 of TOI scale and HCS were 84.4 versus 78.1 (p=0.022) and 52.0 versus 48.2 (p=0.008), respectively, for interventional and standard arm. Until February 2016, 143 (76.9%) of the 186 evaluable patients had died. There was no difference in overall survival between treatment arms. Interpretations Systematic EPC in advanced pancreatic cancer patients significantly improved QoL with respect to on-demand EPC.