Search

BackgroundPenile cancer (PC) is an extremely rare malignancy, and the patients at advanced stages have currently limited treatment options with disappointing results. Immune checkpoint inhibitors anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) are currently changing the treatment of several tumors. Furthermore, the microsatellite instability (MSI) and the deficient mismatch repair system (dMMR) proteins represent predictive biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint therapy. Until present, few data have been reported related to PD-L1 expression and MSI in PC. The main aim of our study was the evaluation of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (TCs) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in immune cells and the analysis of dMMR/MSI status in a large series of PCs.MethodsA series of 72 PC, including 65 usual squamous cell carcinoma (USCC), 1 verrucous, 4 basaloid, 1 warty, and 1 mixed (warty-basaloid), was collected. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed to assess PD-L1 expression using two different anti-PD-L1 antibodies (clone SP263 and SP142 Ventana) and MMR proteins expression using anti-MLH1, anti-PMS2, anti-MSH2, and anti-MSH6 antibodies. PCR analysis was performed for the detection of MSI status.ResultsOf the 72 PC cases analyzed by IHC, 45 (62.5%) cases were TC positive and 57 (79%) cases were combined positive score (CPS) using PDL1 SP263. In our cohort, TILs were present in 62 out of 72 cases (86.1%), 47 (75.8%) out of 62 cases showed positivity to PDL1 clone SP142. In our series, 59 cases (82%) had pMMR, 12 cases (16.7%) had lo-paMMR, and only 1 case (1.3%) had MMR. PCR results showed that only one case lo-paMMR was MSI-H, and the case dMMR by IHC not confirmed MSI status.ConclusionOur findings showed that PD-L1 expression and MSI status represent frequent biological events in this tumor suggesting a rationale for a new frontier in the treatment of patients with PC based on the immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the health systems worldwide. Data regarding the impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients (CPs) undergoing or candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. We depicted the practice and adaptations in the management of patients with solid tumors eligible or receiving ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on Campania region.MethodsThis survey (25 questions), promoted by the young section of SCITO (Società Campana di ImmunoTerapia Oncologica) Group, was circulated among Italian young oncologists practicing in regions variously affected by the pandemic: high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) prevalence of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients. For Campania region, the physician responders were split into those working in cancer centers (CC), university hospitals (UH) and general hospitals (GH). Percentages of agreement, among High (H) versus Medium (M) and versus Low (L) group for Italy and among CC, UH and GH for Campania region, were compared by using Fisher’s exact tests for dichotomous answers and χ2 test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options.ResultsThis is the first Italian study to investigate the COVID-19 impact on cancer immunotherapy, unique in its type and very clear in the results. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed not to affect the standard practice in the prescription and delivery of ICIs in Italy. Telemedicine was widely used. There was high consensus to interrupt immunotherapy in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients and to adopt ICIs with longer schedule interval. The majority of the responders tended not to delay the start of ICIs; there were no changes in supportive treatments, but some of the physicians opted for delaying surgeries (if part of patients’ planned treatment approach). The results from responders in Campania did not differ significantly from the national ones.ConclusionOur study highlights the efforts of Italian oncologists to maintain high standards of care for CPs treated with ICIs, regardless the regional prevalence of COVID-19, suggesting the adoption of similar solutions. Research on patients treated with ICIs and experiencing COVID-19 will clarify the safety profile to continue the treatments, thus informing on the most appropriate clinical conducts.

Background: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine represents one of the standard regimens for first line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). Few data are available on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in geriatric population. Our study aims to show whether this schedule can be feasible in the elderly as first-line treatment for mPC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 64 mPC patients (>= 65 years old) treated according to the MPACT schedule. Results: Median age was 69.5 years (range, 65-80 years); after a median of 5 cycles administered (range, 1-12), the most common adverse events (AEs) were grade 2 alopecia (46.9%), anemia (17.2%) and hypertransaminasemia (10.9%); all grades neutropenia occurred in 20.3% of pts. Global incidence of grade 3 and 4 toxicities were 26.5% and 0%, respectively, and no patients stopped treatment due to unacceptable toxicity. Stable disease (SI)) was observed in 31.2% of patients, with a disease control rate (DCR) and overall response rate of 57.8% and 26.6%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 18 months, median progression free survival (PFS) was 8 months (95% CI: 6.3-9.6) and median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI: 8.4-15.6). The univariate analysis for overall survival (OS) showed that only ECOG performance status was an independent prognostic factor for survival. Conclusions: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine schedule is feasible and effective in the "daily clinical practice" geriatric population.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) represent about 7% of all NETs, 8.7% of gastroenteropancreatic NETs (GEP-NETs) and 1-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. In the last two decades, the increased diagnosis of pNETs has generated great interest and the development of different classifications, grading and staging systems. Recently, several trials were performed in order to improve the knowledge of biomarkers and imaging and to provide an early diagnosis, but their role is still under debate. Nowadays, surgery represents the only curative approach for pNETs. Approximately 90% of pNETs are silent and non-functional; therefore, most patients are diagnosed in late stage and present metastatic (60%) or locally unresectable advanced disease (21%) with a poor prognosis. Not many therapeutic options are available for pNETs, with different treatments for G1-G2 and G3 tumors, because these diseases are still rare and trials are made up of few series of patients. At present, medical treatments is controversial. On these bases, we believe that a multidisciplinary team composed of surgeons, oncologists, endocrinologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and medicals nuclear is required. This paper presents a review of present state-of-the-art in the field of pNETs. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) represent about 7% of all NETs, 8.7% of gastroenteropancreatic NETs (GEP-NETs) and 1-2% of all pancreatic neoplasms. In the last two decades, the increased diagnosis of pNETs has generated great interest and the development of different classifications, grading and staging systems. Recently, several trials were performed in order to improve the knowledge of biomarkers and imaging and to provide an early diagnosis, but their role is still under debate. Nowadays, surgery represents the only curative approach for pNETs. Approximately 90% of pNETs are silent and nonfunctional; therefore, most patients are diagnosed in late stage and present metastatic (60%) or locally unresectable advanced disease (21%) with a poor prognosis. Not many therapeutic options are available for pNETs, with different treatments for G1-G2 and G3 tumors, because these diseases are still rare and trials are made up of few series of patients. At present, medical treatments is controversial. On these bases, we believe that a multidisciplinary team composed of surgeons, oncologists, endocrinologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and medicals nuclear is required. This paper presents a review of present state-of-the-art in the field of pNETs. (c) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Limited.

Background. High neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has shown to be a predictor of poor outcomes in various malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Methods. We assessed 70 consecutive pts with histologically confirmed mPC who received chemotherapy with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine at two different European oncologic centers between January 2012 and November 2015. Variables assessed for prognostic correlations included age ≥ 66, sex, Karnofsky PS score, primary tumor site, baseline CA19.9 level ≥ 59xULN, 12-week decrease of the CA19.9 level ≥ 50% from baseline, basal bilirubin level, baseline NLR, biliary stent implantation, and liver metastasis. Survival analyses were generated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by a Cox proportional hazard model. Results. According to NLR values, the patients were divided into two groups: high and low. Low group patients showed a better median PFS (7 months versus 5 months) and median OS (13 months versus 7 months) in respect to high group patients. At multivariate analysis, Karnofsky PS Conclusions. Baseline NLR is an independent predictor of survival of patients with mPC receiving palliative chemotherapy and could be useful to develop a simple clinical score to identify a subgroup of patients with a low chance to benefit from chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab-alone or combined with paclitaxel-represents one of the main options for patients failing first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE: The RAMoss study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of ramucirumab in the "real-life setting". PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from 25 Italian hospitals started therapy consisting of ramucirumab 8 mg/kg i.v. d1,15q28 with or without paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 i.v. d1,8,15q28. The primary endpoint was safety, and secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven patients with disease progression on first-line therapy received ramucirumab as monotherapy (10%) or combined with paclitaxel (90%). Median treatment duration was 4 months (1-17 months). Global incidence of grade (G) 3-4 toxicity was 9.6%, and for neutropenia 5.4%; treatment was discontinued due to toxicity in 3% of patients. The most frequent adverse events (AE) were G1-2 fatigue (27.5%), G1-2 neuropathy (26.3%), and G1-2 neutropenia (14.9%). ORR was 20.2%. Stable disease was observed in 39.2% of patients, with a disease control rate of 59.4%. With a median follow-up of 11 months, median PFS was 4.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.7), whereas median OS was 8.0 months (95% CI: 7.09-8.9). In a multivariate analysis, ECOG performance status

Aim: Systemic inflammatory response affects survival of gastric cancer (GC) patients. This study was carried out to create a prognostic inflammatory-based score to predict survival in metastatic GC (mGC) before first-line chemotherapy. Materials & methods: We studied the prognostic value of neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet–lymphocyte ratio in 151 patients with mGC at the diagnosis. Results: Median overall survival (OS) was significantly lower in patients with high NLR. Performance status 1–2 according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale and NLR were predictors of shorter OS at multivariate analysis. Based on these results, we defined a prognostic OS score, showing a better median OS in favorable risk group. Conclusion: Elevated pretreatment NLR and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group are independent predictors of shorter OS in mGC patients before first-line chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. In a randomized phase III trial, combination of Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) plus gemcitabine showed superior activity and efficacy in first-line treatment compared with gemcitabine alone. METHODS: Nab-P is not dispensed in Italy; however, we obtained this drug from our Ethics Committee for compassionate use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of this Nab-P and gemcitabine combination in a cohort of patients treated outside clinical trials. From January 2012 to May 2014, we included 41 patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma receiving combination of 125 mg/m(2) Nab-P and 1 g/m(2) gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, as first-line treatment. Median age of patients was 67 (range 41-77) years, and 11 patients were aged ≥70 years. RESULTS: Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status was 0 or 1 in 32 patients (78 %) and 2 in nine patients (22 %). Primary tumor was located in the pancreatic head or body/tail in 24 (58.5 %) and 17 (41.5 %) patients, respectively, and nine patients had received biliary stent implantation before starting chemotherapy. Median carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level was 469 U/l (range 17.4-61546 U/l) and 29 patients (70.7 %) had referred pain at the time of diagnosis. Patients received a median six cycles (range 1-14) of treatment. Overall response rate was 36.6 %; median progression-free survival was 6.7 months [(95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.966-8.034), and median overall survival was 10 months (95 % CI 7.864-12.136). Treatment was well tolerated. No grade 4 toxicity was reported. Grade 3 toxicity included neutropenia in 10 patients (24.3 %), thrombocytopenia in five (12 %), anemia in three (7.3 %), diarrhea in four (9.7 %), nausea and vomiting in two (4.9 %), and fatigue in six (14.6 %). Finally, pain control was achieved in 24 of 29 patients (82.3 %) with a performance status improvement of 10 % according to the Karnofsky scale. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that combination of gemcitabine plus Nab-P is effective both in terms of overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival, with a good safety profile. Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. In a randomized phase III trial, combination of Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) plus gemcitabine showed superior activity and efficacy in first-line treatment compared with gemcitabine alone. Methods: Nab-P is not dispensed in Italy; however, we obtained this drug from our Ethics Committee for compassionate use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of this Nab-P and gemcitabine combination in a cohort of patients treated outside clinical trials. From January 2012 to May 2014, we included 41 patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma receiving combination of 125 mg/m2 Nab-P and 1 g/m2 gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, as first-line treatment. Median age of patients was 67 (range 41-77) years, and 11 patients were aged ≥70 years. Results: Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status was 0 or 1 in 32 patients (78 %) and 2 in nine patients (22 %). Primary tumor was located in the pancreatic head or body/tail in 24 (58.5 %) and 17 (41.5 %) patients, respectively, and nine patients had received biliary stent implantation before starting chemotherapy. Median carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level was 469 U/l (range 17.4-61546 U/l) and 29 patients (70.7 %) had referred pain at the time of diagnosis. Patients received a median six cycles (range 1-14) of treatment. Overall response rate was 36.6 %; median progression-free survival was 6.7 months [(95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.966-8.034), and median overall survival was 10 months (95 % CI 7.864-12.136). Treatment was well tolerated. No grade 4 toxicity was reported. Grade 3 toxicity included neutropenia in 10 patients (24.3 %), thrombocytopenia in five (12 %), anemia in three (7.3 %), diarrhea in four (9.7 %), nausea and vomiting in two (4.9 %), and fatigue in six (14.6 %). Finally, pain control was achieved in 24 of 29 patients (82.3 %) with a performance status improvement of 10 % according to the Karnofsky scale. Conclusions: Our results confirm that combination of gemcitabine plus Nab-P is effective both in terms of overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival, with a good safety profile.