Solitude and fear during the great coronavirus war

When you get ill, the first thing that comes to your mind is, “Will I make it? Will I survive? . COVID19 has a major impact on mental health. A sadness that inundates us like a river in flood and which we cannot hold back. But the thing that torments is the solitude. Those who struggle towards recovery do it alone, and those who do not make it die alone. An emblematic experience of a sense of loneliness, depression and death during illness is deeply described. We tell how the love of family and friends can help to recover from the abyss. Fighting this battle and winning it alone is painful. A lonely death is even more painful. We must stick together virtually and think about each other. The work done with enormous strength and tenacity by doctors and nurses is a great hope for a better time. It does raise the hope that a future generation will be able to truly take care of mankind. When all this ends, we must not go back to normal. We must be reborn, better. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Fears and perception of the impact of COVID-19 on patients with lung cancer. A mono-institutional survey

In February 2020, Italy became one of the first countries to be plagued by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, COVID-19. In March 2020, the Italian government decreed a lockdown for the whole country, which overturned communication systems, hospital organization, and access to patients and their relatives and carers. This issue had a particular regard for cancer patients. Our Thoracic Oncology Division therefore reorganized patient access in order to reduce the risk of contagion and, at the same time, encourage the continuation of treatment. Our staff contacted all patients to inform them of any changes in treatment planning, check that they were taking safety measures, and ascertain their feelings and whether they had any COVID-19 symptoms. To better understand patients’ fears and expectations of during the pandemic period, we created a nine-question interview, administered from April to May 2020 to 156 patients with lung cancer. Patients were classified by age, sex, comorbidity, disease stage, prior treatment, and treatment type. The survey showed that during the pandemic period some patients experienced fear of COVID-19, in particular: women (55% vs. 33%), patients with comorbidities (24% vs. 9%), and patients who had already received prior insult (radiotherapy or surgery) on the lung (30% vs. 11%). In addition, the patients who received oral treatment at home or for whom intravenous treatment was delayed, experienced a sense of relief (90% and 72% respectively). However, only 21% of the patients were more afraid of COVID-19 than of their cancer, in particular patients with long-term (> 12 months) vs. short-term cancer diagnosis (28% vs. 12.5%, respectively). Furthermore, the quarantine period or even just the lockdown period alone, worsened the quality of life of some patients (40%), especially those in oral treatment (47%). Our data demonstrate how lung cancer patients are more afraid of their disease than of a world pandemic. Also this interview indirectly highlights the clinician’s major guiding principle in correctly and appropriately managing not just the patient’s expectations of their illness and its treatment, but also and especially of the patient’s fears

Correlation among different KRAS alterations, genetic co-mutations and PD-L1 expression in patients treated with immunotherapy in metastatic NSCLC

n/

Results of multilevel containment measures to better protect lung cancer patients from COVID-19. the IEO model

A novel coronavirus causing severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), named SARS-CoV-2, was identified at the end of 2019. The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has progressively expanded from China, involving several countries throughout the world, leading to the classification of the disease as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to published reports, COVID-19 severity and mortality are higher in elderly patients and those with active comorbidities. In particular, lung cancer patients were reported to be at high risk of pulmonary complications related to SARS-CoV2 infection. Therefore, the management of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic is a crucial issue, to which national and international oncology organizations have replied with recommendations concerning patients receiving anticancer treatments, delaying follow-up visits and limiting caregiver admission to the hospitals. In this historical moment, medical oncologists are required to consider the possibility to delay active treatment administration based on a case-by-case risk/benefit evaluation. Potential risks associated with COVID-19 infection should be considered, considering tumor histology and natural course, disease setting, clinical conditions, and disease burden, together with the expected benefit, toxicities (e.g., myelosuppression or interstitial lung disease), and response obtained from the planned or ongoing treatment. In this study, we report the results of proactive measures including social media, telemedicine, and telephone triage for screening patients with lung cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak in the European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy). Proactive management and containment measures, applied in a structured and daily way, has significantly aided the identification of advance patients with suspected symptoms related to COVID-19, limiting their admission to our cancer center; we have thus been more able to protect other patients from possible contamination and at the same time guarantee to the suspected patients the immediate treatment and evaluation in referral hospitals for COVID-19

Brain metastases in EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer. the way to the sanctuary becomes less winding

abstract not availabl

Economic burden of the management of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer in Italy: a cost of illness study

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) accounts for 20% of all cancers in subjects over 50 years in Italy. The majority of patients with PCa present with localized disease at the time of diagnosis, but many patients develop recurrent metastatic disease after treatment with curative intent. Androgen deprivation therapy is the standard of care for metastatic PCa patients; unfortunately, most of them progress to castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5 years. Metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) heavily affects patients in terms of quality of life, side effects, and survival, and greatly impacts economic costs. The approval of new effective agents in recent years, including cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and radium-223, has dramatically changed patient management. Materials and methods: Here, we aimed to estimate the current costs of illness of mCRPC in Italy. All patients affected by mCRPC and treated with a single agent in an annual time horizon were considered. Therefore, the analysis was not focused on the management pathway of single patients through different lines of treatment. Direct medical costs referred to therapy, adverse event management, and skeletal-related event management were analyzed. A bottom-up approach was used to estimate the resource consumption: through national guidelines and expert opinions, the mean cost per patient was estimated and then multiplied by the total number of patients diagnosed with mCRPC. Results: Direct medical costs ranged from €196.5 million to €228.0 million, representing ~0.2% of the financing of the Italian National Health Service in 2016. The main cost driver was the cost of treatment, which represented more than 77% of the overall economic burden. Conclusion: Our analysis, reflective of real clinical practice, shows for the first time the high economic cost of mCRPC in Italy

Clinical features affecting survival in metastatic NSCLC treated with immunotherapy: a critical review of published data

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent one of the main steps forward for the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), without oncogenic driver alterations. Despite this recent progress, only a minority of patients achieve a broad and durable benefit and another proportion report poor survival and sometimes fast disease progression, confirming the need to optimise the patient's selection. To date, several issues are unsolved about how to personalise the immunotherapy treatment for individual patients. In this review, analysing data from pivotal randomised clinical trials (RCTs), we discuss patient baseline clinical and demographic features, including sex, age, ECOG performance status, smoking habit and specific site of metastases (liver, bone and brain) that may influence the efficacy outcomes in patients treated with ICIs. The high performance of the ICIs blurred the vision on different efficacy-limiting factors, which require extensive evaluation to improve the understanding of the tumour-specific immune response, in which clinical drivers could be useful for better patient stratification

Efficacy of Anti-PD1/PD-L1 Therapy (IO) in KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM: The role of anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapy (IO) in NSCLC harboring driver mutations is questionable. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of IO in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a KRAS mutation (KRAS+). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified NSCLC patients harboring KRAS mutation treated with IO in our Institution. We analyzed the results in comparison to non-KRAS patients. RESULTS: Among 328 consecutive KRAS+ NSCLC patients, 43 (13.1%) received IO in our Institution. In parallel 117 non-KRAS NSCLC patients treated with IO were selected for comparison. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. No significant difference was observed between KRAS+ and non-KRAS patients in terms of mPFS (4.6 vs. 3.3 months, p=0.58) or OS (8.1 vs. 13.0 months, p=0.38). CONCLUSION: KRAS mutations seem to be irrelevant for selecting patients for IO that could be therefore considered an effective therapy for NSCLC patients, independently of KRAS status