Excess cases of prostate cancer and estimated overdiagnosis associated with PSA testing in East Anglia

This study aimed to estimate the extent of 'overdiagnosis' of prostate cancer attributable to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the Cambridge area between 1996 and 2002. Overdiagnosis was defined conceptually as detection of prostate cancer through PSA testing that otherwise would not have been diagnosed within the patient's lifetime. Records of PSA tests in Addenbrookes Hospital were linked to prostate cancer registrations by NHS number. Differences in prostate cancer registration rates between those receiving and not receiving prediagnosis PSA tests were calculated. The proportion of men aged 40 years or over with a prediagnosis PSA test increased from 1.4 to 5.2% from 1996 to 2002. The rate of diagnosis of prostate cancer was 45% higher (rate ratios (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.02-2.07) in men with a history of prediagnosis PSA testing. Assuming average lead times of 5 to 10 years, 40-64% of the PSA-detected cases were estimated to be overdiagnosed. In East Anglia, from 1996 to 2000, a 1.6% excess of cases was associated with PSA testing (around a quarter of the 5.3% excess incidence cases observed in East Anglia from 1996 to 2000). Further quantification of the overdiagnosis will result from continued surveillance and from linkage of incidence to testing in other hospitals

Influence of operative time and blood loss on surgical margins and functional outcomes for laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis

Introduction: The aim of this article was to analyze whether operative time and blood loss during radical prostatectomy (RP) can significantly influence surgical margins (SM) status and post-operative functional outcomes. Material and methods: We prospectively analyzed prostate cancer (PC) patients undergoing RP, using robot-assisted (RARP) or laparoscopic (LRP) procedures. Blood loss was defined using the variation in hemoglobin (Hb, g/dl) values from the day before surgery and no later than 4 hours after surgery. Results: From a whole population of 413 cases considered for RP, 67% underwent LRP and 33.0% RARP. Positive SM (SM+) were found in 33.9% of cases. Mean surgical operative time was 172.3 ±76 min (range 49-485), whereas blood loss was 2.3 ±1.2 g/dl (range 0.3-7.6). Operative time and blood loss at RP were not significantly correlated (r = -0.028275; p = 0.684). SM+ rates significantly (p = 0.002) varied by operative time; a higher SM+ rate was found in cases with an operative time <120 min (41.2%) and >240 min (53.4%). The risk of SM+ significantly increased 1.70 and 1.94 times in cases with an operative time <120 min and >240 min, respectively, independently to the surgical approach. The rate of erectile disfunction (ED) varied from 22.4% to 60.3% between <120 min and >240 min procedures (p = 0.001). According to blood loss, SM+ rates slightly but significantly (p = 0.032) varied; a higher rate of SM+ was found in cases with a Hb variation between 2-4 g/dl (35.9%). Conclusions: Independently to the surgical approach, operative time, more than blood loss at RP, represents a significant variable able to influence SM status and post-operative ED

Sarilumab plus standard of care vs standard of care for the treatment of severe COVID-19: a phase 3, randomized, open-labeled, multi-center study (ESCAPE study)

Background Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19.Methods In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76).Findings Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81-94] in arm A vs 85% [74-93], HR 1.07 [0.8-1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% [77-96] vs 79% [63-91], HR 1.55 [0.9-2.6]; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% [79-96]) vs (73% [55-89], HR 1.53 [0.9-2.7]; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths.Interpretation The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results.Funding This study was supported by INMI "Lazzaro Spallanzani" Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and ree-merging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.Copyright (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Association of Toll-like receptor 7 variants with life-threatening COVID-19 disease in males: findings from a nested case-control study

Background: Recently, loss-of-function variants in TLR7 were identified in two families in which COVID-19 segregates like an X-linked recessive disorder environmentally conditioned by SARS-CoV-2. We investigated whether the two families represent the tip of the iceberg of a subset of COVID-19 male patients.Methods: This is a nested case-control study in which we compared male participants with extreme phenotype selected from the Italian GEN-COVID cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected participants (<60y, 79 severe cases versus 77 control cases). We applied the LASSO Logistic Regression analysis, considering only rare variants on young male subsets with extreme phenotype, picking up TLR7 as the most important susceptibility gene.Results: Overall, we found TLR7 deleterious variants in 2.1% of severely affected males and in none of the asymptomatic participants. The functional gene expression profile analysis demonstrated a reduction in TLR7-related gene expression in patients compared with controls demonstrating an impairment in type I and II IFN responses.Conclusion: Young males with TLR7 loss-of-function variants and severe COVID-19 represent a subset of male patients contributing to disease susceptibility in up to 2% of severe COVID-19

Ultra-rare RTEL1 gene variants associate with acute severity of COVID-19 and evolution to pulmonary fibrosis as a specific long COVID disorder

Background: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel coronavirus that caused an ongoing pandemic of a pathology termed Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19). Several studies reported that both COVID-19 and RTEL1 variants are associated with shorter telomere length, but a direct association between the two is not generally acknowledged. Here we demonstrate that up to 8.6% of severe COVID-19 patients bear RTEL1 ultra-rare variants, and show how this subgroup can be recognized. Methods: A cohort of 2246 SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, collected within the GEN-COVID Multicenter study, was used in this work. Whole exome sequencing analysis was performed using the NovaSeq6000 System, and machine learning methods were used for candidate gene selection of severity. A nested study, comparing severely affected patients bearing or not variants in the selected gene, was used for the characterisation of specific clinical features connected to variants in both acute and post-acute phases. Results: Our GEN-COVID cohort revealed a total of 151 patients carrying at least one RTEL1 ultra-rare variant, which was selected as a specific acute severity feature. From a clinical point of view, these patients showed higher liver function indices, as well as increased CRP and inflammatory markers, such as IL-6. Moreover, compared to control subjects, they present autoimmune disorders more frequently. Finally, their decreased diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide after six months of COVID-19 suggests that RTEL1 variants can contribute to the development of SARS-CoV-2-elicited lung fibrosis. Conclusion: RTEL1 ultra-rare variants can be considered as a predictive marker of COVID-19 severity, as well as a marker of pathological evolution in pulmonary fibrosis in the post-COVID phase. This notion can be used for a rapid screening in hospitalized infected people, for vaccine prioritization, and appropriate follow-up assessment for subjects at risk. Trial Registration NCT04549831 (www.clinicaltrial.org

An explainable model of host genetic interactions linked to COVID-19 severity

We employed a multifaceted computational strategy to identify the genetic factors contributing to increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection from a Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) dataset of a cohort of 2000 Italian patients. We coupled a stratified k-fold screening, to rank variants more associated with severity, with the training of multiple supervised classifiers, to predict severity based on screened features. Feature importance analysis from tree-based models allowed us to identify 16 variants with the highest support which, together with age and gender covariates, were found to be most predictive of COVID-19 severity. When tested on a follow-up cohort, our ensemble of models predicted severity with high accuracy (ACC = 81.88%; AUCROC = 96%; MCC = 61.55%). Our model recapitulated a vast literature of emerging molecular mechanisms and genetic factors linked to COVID-19 response and extends previous landmark Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). It revealed a network of interplaying genetic signatures converging on established immune system and inflammatory processes linked to viral infection response. It also identified additional processes cross-talking with immune pathways, such as GPCR signaling, which might offer additional opportunities for therapeutic intervention and patient stratification. Publicly available PheWAS datasets revealed that several variants were significantly associated with phenotypic traits such as “Respiratory or thoracic disease”, supporting their link with COVID-19 severity outcome

Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?

Nearly five decades following its conception, the Gleason grading system remains a cornerstone in the prognostication and management of patients with prostate cancer. In the past few years, a debate has been growing whether Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer is a clinically significant disease. Clinical, molecular and genetic research is addressing the question whether well characterized Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease has the ability to affect the morbidity and quality of life of an individual in whom it is diagnosed. The consequences of treatment of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease are considerable; few men get through their treatments without sustaining some harm. Further modification of the classification of prostate cancer and dropping the label cancer for Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease might be warranted