Induction therapy before surgery for non-small cell lung cancer

Surgery alone is currently still accepted as the principal therapy for cure for patients with localized non-small cell lung cancer. The optimal therapy in locally advanced and unresectable stage III disease remains unclear. The limited performance of each single therapeutic strategy (surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy) in the treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer accounted for the rationale of the many attempts at improvement by integrating the different approaches. In recent years, to improve clinical outcome, chemotherapy or chemoradiation followed by surgery, and definitive chemoradiation have commonly been used. Despite numerous phase-II trials, little evidence from randomized phase-III trials has been generated. The ongoing randomized trials will probably provide more reliable indications to define the management of the large number of patients with locally advanced disease

Intervento psicoeducazionale di gruppo per pazienti prostatectomizzati: uno studio pilota in Italia

Sono stati condotti tre focus groups (FGs) con 16 pazienti prostatectomizzati di tre Centri Oncologici. La maggior parte dei pazienti ha espresso il bisogno di più informazioni, soprattutto sugli effetti collaterali dei trattamenti, la necessità di un approccio multidisciplinare nel percorso di cura, di essere trattati da un punto di vista olistico e l’importanza dell’assistenza post-chirurgia anche con un supporto psicologico. Sulla base di quanto emerso dai FGs, sono stati condotti tre interventi psicoeducazionali di gruppo suddivisi in 3 incontri con 16 pazienti (tasso di aderenza 95.8%). Ricevere informazioni mediche e condividere la propria esperienza di malattia con altri pazienti, sono i principali benefici citati dai pazienti al termine dell’intervento. I gruppi psicoeducazionali sono interventi a basso costo, facili da organizzare e ben accettati dai pazienti prostatectomizzati. Sarebbe auspicabile che fossero effettuati all’interno delle Prostate Cancer Units con cadenza regolare per soddisfare i bisogni informativi e psicologici dei pazienti

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on cancer immunotherapy in Italy: a survey of young oncologists.

Background The 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.Methods This 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.Results This 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.Conclusion Our 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

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on cancer immunotherapy in Italy: A survey of young oncologists

Background The 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. Methods This 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 χ 2 test for trends relative to the questions with 3 or more options. Results This 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. Conclusion Our 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

One‐Year Landmark Analysis of the Effect of Beta‐Blocker Dose on Survival After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background Although beta‐blockers are recommended following myocardial infarction (MI), the benefits of long‐term treatment have not been established. The study's aim was to evaluate beta‐blocker efficacy by dose in 1‐year post‐MI survivors. Methods and Results The OBTAIN (Outcomes of Beta‐Blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction) registry included 7057 patients with acute MI, with 6077 one‐year survivors. For this landmark analysis, beta‐blocker dose status was available in 3004 patients and analyzed by use (binary) and dose at 1 year after MI. Doses were classified as no beta‐blocker and >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, >25% to 50%, and >50% of target doses used in randomized clinical trials. Age was 63 to 64 years, and approximately two thirds were men. Median follow‐up duration was 1.05 years (interquartile range, 0.98–1.22). When analyzed dichotomously, beta‐blocker therapy was not associated with improved survival. When analyzed by dose, propensity score analysis showed significantly increased mortality in the no–beta‐blocker group (hazard ratio,1.997; 95% CI, 1.118–3.568; P 0% to 12.5% group (hazard ratio, 1.817; 95% CI, 1.094–3.016; P 25% to 50% group (hazard ratio, 1.764; 95% CI, 1.105–2.815; P 12.5% to 25% dose group. The mortality in the full‐dose group was not significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.196; 95% CI, 0.687–2.083). In subgroup analyses, only history of congestive heart failure demonstrated significant interaction with beta‐blocker effects on survival. Conclusions This analysis suggests that patients treated with >12.5% to 25% of the target dose used in prior randomized clinical trials beyond 1 year after MI may have enhanced survival compared with no beta‐blocker and other beta‐blocker doses. A new paradigm for post‐MI beta‐blocker therapy is needed that addresses which patients should be treated, for how long, and at what dose