L'impatto psicologico dell'amianto, killer invisibile del corpo e della mente.

Introduction: Exposure to asbestos causes the onset of various diseases, including lung plaques, asbestosis and malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Living in a Contaminated Site can therefore represent for the entire community a real cumulative trauma that brings into the field disease and death due to a kind of "invisible killer": asbestos. In such circumstances, it is necessary to implement multidisciplinary protocols that can offer an integrated approach to care for both patients and their caregivers. Methodology: There is now a large body of scientific evidence in the literature substantiating the importance of the role that clinical psychology can play in oncology. The objective of this work is to describe specifically the situation in Casale Monferrato, the research carried out in the area and to outline the psychological-clinical intervention proposed there to respond to the quality of needs highlighted in patients suffering from asbestos-related diseases, including mainly MPM, and their caregivers. Results: The results of the research carried out in Casale Monferrato highlight what emerges in the international literature, namely that patients with asbestocorrelated diseases frequently manifest anxiety, depression, somatic disorders and a certain tendency to social withdrawal. The psychological-clinical work within the intervention of short-term group psychotherapy offers them a setting in which they can historicize the disease and process the many facets of pain that an inauspicious diagnosis brings to the field: from the one more related to the body, to the more purely psychic. Conclusion: The role of clinical psychology in oncology is of fundamental importance both for the patient and for his family, as it can facilitate the processing of suffering and anger related to the diagnosis of cancer disease or having to take care of a loved one who has been given an inauspicious diagnosis. Psychological intervention also allows to give name and meaning to the fear related to exposure to asbestos: a silent and invisible killer, which otherwise risks remaining unthought of and unthinkable

Anti-PD1 antibodies in patients aged ≥ 75 years with metastatic melanoma: A retrospective multicentre study

Advanced age is associated with comorbidities and immune system impairment, which may influence the efficacy and tolerability of immune checkpoint inhibitors. There is evidence that anti-PD1 antibodies in advanced melanoma are equally effective in patients >65 years. However, data on patients >75 years are lacking as co-morbidities and logistics often exclude them from clinical trials

Musculoskeletal manifestations of childhood cancer and differential diagnosis with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ONCOREUM): a multicentre, cross-sectional study

Summary Background Presenting symptoms of childhood cancers might mimic those of rheumatic diseases. However, the evidence available to guide differential diagnosis remains scarce. Preventing wrong or delayed diagnosis is therefore important to avoid incorrect administration of glucocorticoid or immunosuppressive therapy and worsening of prognosis. As such, we aimed to assess the prevalence and characteristics of presenting musculoskeletal manifestations in patients at cancer onset and to identify the factors that differentiate childhood malignancies with arthropathy from juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Methods We did a multicentre, cross-sectional study at 25 paediatric haemato-oncology centres and 22 paediatric rheumatology centres in Italy. We prospectively recruited patients who were younger than 16 years that were newly diagnosed with cancer or juvenile idiopathic arthritis. We excluded patients with glucocorticoid pre-treatment (>1 mg/kg per day of oral prednisone or equivalent for ≥2 consecutive weeks). We collected data for patients with a new diagnosis of cancer or juvenile idiopathic arthritis using an electronic case report form on a web-based platform powered by the Cineca Interuniversity Consortium. The primary outcome was to describe the frequency and characteristics of musculoskeletal manifestations at cancer onset; and the secondary outcome was to identify factors that could discriminate malignancies presenting with arthropathy, with or without other musculoskeletal symptoms, from juvenile idiopathic arthritis using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Findings Between May 1, 2015, and May 31, 2018, 1957 patients were eligible, of which 1277 (65%) had cancer and 680 (35%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in 324 (25% [95% CI 23·0–27·8]) of 1277 patients with cancer, of whom 207 had arthropathy. Patients with malignant bone tumours had the highest frequency of musculoskeletal symptoms (53 [80%] of 66), followed by patients with Langerhans histiocytosis (16 [47%] of 34), leukaemia (189 [32%] of 582), soft-tissue sarcomas (16 [24%] of 68), and neuroblastoma (21 [19%] of 109). In the 324 patients with cancer and musculoskeletal symptoms, the most common complaints were joint pain (199 [61%]), followed by limb bone pain (112 [35%]). Joint involvement had a prevalent monoarticular pattern (100 [48%] of 207) and oligoarticular pattern (86 [42%] had 2–4 joints involved and 20 [10%] had >4 joints involved), with the most frequently involved joints being the hip (88 [43%] of 207) and knee (81 [39%]). On multivariable analysis, limb bone pain was the independent variable most strongly associated with cancer (odds ratio [OR] 87·80 [95% CI 18·89–408·12]), followed by weight loss (59·88 [6·34–565·53]), thrombocytopenia (12·67 [2·40–66·92]), monoarticular involvement (11·30 [4·09–31·19]), hip involvement (3·30 [1·13–9·61]), and male sex (2·40 [1·03–5·58]). Factors independently associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis were morning stiffness (OR 0·04 [95% CI 0·01–0·20]), joint swelling (0·03 [0·01–0·09]), and involvement of the small hand joints (0·02 [0–1·05]). Interpretation Our study provides detailed information about presenting musculoskeletal manifestations of childhood cancers and highlights the clinical and laboratory features that are most helpful in the differential diagnosis with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Adjuvant anastrozole versus exemestane versus letrozole, upfront or after 2 years of tamoxifen, in endocrine-sensitive breast cancer (FATA-GIM3): a randomised, phase 3 trial

Background: Uncertainty exists about the optimal schedule of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with aromatase inhibitors and, to our knowledge, no trial has directly compared the three aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole. We investigated the schedule and type of aromatase inhibitors to be used as adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Methods: FATA-GIM3 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of six different treatments in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer that had been completely removed by surgery, any pathological tumour size, and axillary nodal status. Key exclusion criteria were hormone replacement therapy, recurrent or metastatic disease, previous treatment with tamoxifen, and another malignancy in the previous 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned in an equal ratio to one of six treatment groups: oral anastrozole (1 mg per day), exemestane (25 mg per day), or letrozole (2·5 mg per day) tablets upfront for 5 years (upfront strategy) or oral tamoxifen (20 mg per day) for 2 years followed by oral administration of one of the three aromatase inhibitors for 3 years (switch strategy). Randomisation was done by a computerised minimisation procedure stratified for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status; previous chemotherapy; and pathological nodal status. Neither the patients nor the physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The minimum cutoff to declare superiority of the upfront strategy over the switch strategy was assumed to be a 2% difference in disease-free survival at 5 years. Primary efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all patients for whom at least one safety case report form had been completed. Follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2006-004018-42, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00541086. Findings: Between March 9, 2007, and July 31, 2012, 3697 patients were enrolled into the study. After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 46–72), 401 disease-free survival events were reported, including 211 (11%) of 1850 patients allocated to the switch strategy and 190 (10%) of 1847 patients allocated to upfront treatment. 5-year disease-free survival was 88·5% (95% CI 86·7–90·0) with the switch strategy and 89·8% (88·2–91·2) with upfront treatment (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·73–1·08; p=0·23). 5-year disease-free survival was 90·0% (95% CI 87·9–91·7) with anastrozole (124 events), 88·0% (85·8–89·9) with exemestane (148 events), and 89·4% (87·3 to 91·1) with letrozole (129 events; p=0·24). No unexpected serious adverse reactions or treatment-related deaths occurred. Musculoskeletal side-effects were the most frequent grade 3–4 events, reported in 130 (7%) of 1761 patients who received the switch strategy and 128 (7%) of 1766 patients who received upfront treatment. Grade 1 musculoskeletal events were more frequent with the upfront schedule than with the switch schedule (924 [52%] of 1766 patients vs 745 [42%] of 1761 patients). All other grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in either group. Interpretation: 5 years of treatment with aromatase inhibitors was not superior to 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 3 years of aromatase inhibitors. None of the three aromatase inhibitors was superior to the others in terms of efficacy. Therefore, patient preference, tolerability, and financial constraints should be considered when deciding the optimal treatment approach in this setting. Funding: Italian Drug Agency

Proceedings Of The 23Rd Paediatric Rheumatology European Society Congress: Part Two

PubMe