Radical penectomy, a compromise for life: Results from the PECAD study

Background: The use of organ sparing strategies to treat penile cancer (PC) is currently supported by evidence that has indicated the safety, efficacy and benefit of this surgery. However, radical penectomy still represents up to 15-20% of primary tumor treatments in PC patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of radical penectomy in PC patients.Methods: Data from a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 13 European and American urological centers (Hospital "Sant'Andrea", Sapienza University, Roma, Italy; "G.D'Annunzio" University, Chieti and ASL 2 Abruzzo, Hospital "S. Pio da Pietrelcina", Vasto, Italy; Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Hospital of Budapest, Hungary; Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Italy; Hospital "Spedali Civil", Brescia, Italy; Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Ceara Cancer Institute, Fortaleza, Brazil; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland) between 2010 and 2016 were used. Medical records of patients who specifically underwent radical penectomy were reviewed to identify main clinical and pathological variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1- and 5-year OS and DFS.Results: Of the entire cohort of 425 patients, 72 patients (16.9%) treated with radical penectomy were extracted and were considered for the analysis. The median age was 64.5 (IQR, 57.5-73.2) years. Of all, 41 (56.9%) patients had pT3/pT4 and 31 (43.1%) pT1/pT2. Moreover, 36 (50.0%) were classified as pN1-3 and 5 (6.9%) MI. Furthermore, 61 (84.7%) had a high grade (G2-G3) with 6 (8.3%) positive surgical margins. The 1- and 5-year OS rates were respectively 73.3% and 59.9%, while the 1- and 5-year DFS rates were respectively 67.3% and 35.1%.Conclusions: PC is an aggressive cancer particularly in more advanced stage. Overall, more than a third of patients do not survive at 5 years and more than 60% report a disease recurrence, despite the use of a radical treatment

Radical penectomy, a compromise for life. Results from the PECAD study

Background: The use of organ sparing strategies to treat penile cancer (PC) is currently supported by evidence that has indicated the safety, efficacy and benefit of this surgery. However, radical penectomy still represents up to 15-20% of primary tumor treatments in PC patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of radical penectomy in PC patients. Methods: Data from a retrospective multicenter study (PEnile Cancer ADherence study, PECAD Study) on PC patients treated at 13 European and American urological centers (Hospital “Sant'Andrea”, Sapienza University, Roma, Italy; “G.D'Annunzio” University, Chieti and ASL 2 Abruzzo, Hospital “S. Pio da Pietrelcina”, Vasto, Italy; Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA; Hospital of Budapest, Hungary; Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology and Andrology Unit II, University of Bari, Italy; Hospital “Spedali Civili”, Brescia, Italy; Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain; Ceara Cancer Institute, Fortaleza, Brazil; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland) between 2010 and 2016 were used. Medical records of patients who specifically underwent radical penectomy were reviewed to identify main clinical and pathological variables. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1- and 5-year OS and DFS. Results: Of the entire cohort of 425 patients, 72 patients (16.9%) treated with radical penectomy were extracted and were considered for the analysis. The median age was 64.5 (IQR, 57.5-73.2) years. Of all, 41 (56.9%) patients had pT3/pT4 and 31 (43.1%) pT1/pT2. Moreover, 36 (50.0%) were classified as pN1-3 and 5 (6.9%) M1. Furthermore, 61 (84.7%) had a high grade (G2-G3) with 6 (8.3%) positive surgical margins. The 1- and 5-year OS rates were respectively 73.3% and 59.9%, while the 1- and 5-year DFS rates were respectively 67.3% and 35.1%. Conclusions: PC is an aggressive cancer particularly in more advanced stage. Overall, more than a third of patients do not survive at 5 years and more than 60% report a disease recurrence, despite the use of a radical treatment

Abiraterone Acetate for Treatment of Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in Chemotherapy-naive Patients: An Italian Analysis of Patients' Satisfaction

This article highlights the possible role of “patient-reported outcomes” in the evaluation of a new therapy. Abiraterone acetate is a novel treatment for metastatic prostate cancer characterized by good safety and oncologic efficacy. Few studies have investigated patients' satisfaction with treatment. Our data show that abiraterone acetate is associated with good satisfaction with treatment and that patient's satisfaction can be a predictor of good oncologic outcomes. Introduction Abiraterone acetate (AA) gives a significant improvement in survival for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) before and after chemotherapy and has a favorable effect on patients' health-related quality of life and pain. Only a few studies have investigated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in AA treatment for mCRPC. The aim of this study was to investigate patients' satisfaction in men affected by mCRPC treated with AA. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective analysis of a database of consecutive chemonaive patients with progressive mCRPC. Patients were treated with AA until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. Evaluation was performed at baseline and every 4 weeks by means of physical examination and laboratory studies. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, pain symptoms, treatment-related toxicity, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and overall and progression-free survival were recorded. Satisfaction with treatment was investigated at 6 months by means of a 4-point arbitrary scale. Results One-hundred twenty-eight patients were enrolled. Patients' satisfaction with treatment was “greatly improved” in 36.1% of patients and “improved” in 32.4% of them. Patients with higher satisfaction had lower baseline and final PSA values (P < .05), lower PSA levels at 12 weeks (P = .080), and less pain symptoms and lower Brief Pain Inventory scores (P = .001). Satisfaction with treatment was significantly correlated with baseline PSA level (P = .018), presence of pain (P = .007), duration of androgen deprivation therapy >12 months (P = .025), and number of hormonal manipulations (P = .051). Progression-free survival significantly correlated with patient satisfaction (P < .001). Conclusion AA is safe and well tolerated in chemonaive mCRPC patients, ensures good oncological and PROs. Patient's satisfaction is a predictor of progression-free survival

Correction to: Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial (Journal of Translational Medicine, (2020), 18, 1, (405), 10.1186/s12967-020-02573-9)

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors identified that the collaborators of the TOCIVID-19 investigators, Italy were only available in the supplementary file. The original article has been updated so that the collaborators are correctly acknowledged. For clarity, all collaborators are listed in this correction article

Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial

BackgroundTocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients.MethodsA multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival.ResultsIn the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6-24.0, P=0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2-28.3, P<0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.ConclusionsTocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092)