68 research outputs found

    Healthcare Professional Communication on Sexual Health: A Report from the Italian Working Group on Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer

    Get PDF
    Background: Sexual function is an important concern for adolescent and young adult (AYA) with cancer. The aim of this study was to explore the attitude of Italian health care professionals who deal with AYA patients with cancer toward sexual health communication. Materials and methods: A 11-question survey was developed by the AIOM (Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica) and AIEOP (Associazione Italiana Ematologia Oncologia Pediatrica) AYA workgroup and sent to AIOM and AIEOP members. Results: The sample comprised 360 respondents, 54.2% AIEOP and 45.8% AIOM members. Eighty percent were physicians, 14.5% nurses, 4.7% psychologists, and 0.8% other professionals. Medical oncologists are more used to investigate about AYA sexual health than pediatric oncologists (58.2% vs. 46.2%), even if pediatrics more frequently refer patients to specific and shared protocol (40% vs. 26.1%). Both AIOM and AIEOP participants mostly talk about sexual health only on request or occasionally (78.8% and 79%, respectively). Clinician-reported barriers to communication identified in this study are lack of preparation and embarrassment for both the categories, plus the presence/interference of parents for pediatrics and lack of time for medical oncologists. Overall, less than 5% of clinicians in our survey received specific training on potential sexual health issues in AYA patients with cancer and only 2% felt adequately prepared to speak about it. Conclusion: Sexual health is a key component of comprehensive care for AYA with cancer during treatments. This study highlighted the need of Italian providers for specific training and guidelines on sex-related health issues encountered by AYA patients

    Application of the Meet-URO score to metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with second- and third-line cabozantinib

    Get PDF
    open18Background: The addition of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and bone metastases to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (by the Meet-URO score) has been shown to better stratify pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. This study aimed to validate the Meet-URO score in patients receiving cabozantinib to assess its predictivity and prognostic role. Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis evaluated mRCC patients receiving ⩾second-line cabozantinib. NLR, IMDC score and bone metastases were assessed before the start of cabozantinib. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of the prediction of the two scores. Results: Overall, 174 mRCC patients received cabozantinib as second and third line (51.7% and 48.3%, respectively) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months. A shorter median overall survival (mOS) was observed for the IMDC poor-risk group, NLR ⩾3.2 and the presence of bone metastases, while the IMDC intermediate-risk group had a similar mOS to the favourable-risk one. Applying the Meet-URO score, three risk groups were identified: group 1 (55.2% of patients) with a score of 0-3, group 2 (38.5%) with a score of 4-8 and group 3 (6.3%) with a score of 9. Compared to group 1 (mOS: 39.4 months), a statistically significant worse mOS was observed in group 2 (11.2 months) and group 3 (3.2 months) patients, respectively. The Meet-URO c-index score was 0.640, showing a higher discriminative ability than the IMDC score (c-index: 0.568). Conclusion: This analysis showed that the Meet-URO score provides a more accurate prognostic stratification than the IMDC score in mRCC patients treated with ⩾second-line cabozantinib besides nivolumab. Moreover, it is an easy-to-use tool with no additional costs for clinical practice (web-calculator is available at: https://proviso.shinyapps.io/Meet-URO15_score/). Future investigations will include the application of the Meet-URO score to the first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies.openRebuzzi, Sara Elena; Cerbone, Luigi; Signori, Alessio; Santoni, Matteo; Murianni, Veronica; De Giorgi, Ugo; Procopio, Giuseppe; Porta, Camillo; Milella, Michele; Basso, Umberto; Massari, Francesco; Maruzzo, Marco; Iacovelli, Roberto; Battelli, Nicola; Carmisciano, Luca; Banna, Giuseppe Luigi; Buti, Sebastiano; Fornarini, GiuseppeRebuzzi, Sara Elena; Cerbone, Luigi; Signori, Alessio; Santoni, Matteo; Murianni, Veronica; De Giorgi, Ugo; Procopio, Giuseppe; Porta, Camillo; Milella, Michele; Basso, Umberto; Massari, Francesco; Maruzzo, Marco; Iacovelli, Roberto; Battelli, Nicola; Carmisciano, Luca; Banna, Giuseppe Luigi; Buti, Sebastiano; Fornarini, Giusepp

    Application of the Meet-URO score to metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with second- and third-line cabozantinib

    Get PDF
    Background: The addition of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and bone metastases to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (by the Meet-URO score) has been shown to better stratify pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. This study aimed to validate the Meet-URO score in patients receiving cabozantinib to assess its predictivity and prognostic role. Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis evaluated mRCC patients receiving ⩾second-line cabozantinib. NLR, IMDC score and bone metastases were assessed before the start of cabozantinib. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of the prediction of the two scores. Results: Overall, 174 mRCC patients received cabozantinib as second and third line (51.7% and 48.3%, respectively) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months. A shorter median overall survival (mOS) was observed for the IMDC poor-risk group, NLR ⩾3.2 and the presence of bone metastases, while the IMDC intermediate-risk group had a similar mOS to the favourable-risk one. Applying the Meet-URO score, three risk groups were identified: group 1 (55.2% of patients) with a score of 0-3, group 2 (38.5%) with a score of 4-8 and group 3 (6.3%) with a score of 9. Compared to group 1 (mOS: 39.4 months), a statistically significant worse mOS was observed in group 2 (11.2 months) and group 3 (3.2 months) patients, respectively. The Meet-URO c-index score was 0.640, showing a higher discriminative ability than the IMDC score (c-index: 0.568). Conclusion: This analysis showed that the Meet-URO score provides a more accurate prognostic stratification than the IMDC score in mRCC patients treated with ⩾second-line cabozantinib besides nivolumab. Moreover, it is an easy-to-use tool with no additional costs for clinical practice (web-calculator is available at: https://proviso.shinyapps.io/Meet-URO15_score/). Future investigations will include the application of the Meet-URO score to the first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies

    The prognostic value of peripheral blood inflammatory indices early variation in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with nivolumab (Δ-Meet-URO analysis)

    Get PDF
    Background: Immunotherapy has improved the treatment landscape of mRCC pts and identifying biomarkers for patients’ selection is clinically needed. Inflammatory indices from peripheral blood showed a prognostic value in different tumors and therapies, including immunotherapy. These biomarkers are inexpensive and readily available in clinical practice. We aimed to assess the prognostic role of the dynamic evaluation of these indices in immunotherapy-naïve pretreated mRCC pts. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 multicentric retrospective study enrolled 571 pretreated mRCC pts receiving nivolumab. The Δ-Meet-URO was a secondary analysis on the early variation through the first four cycles of therapy compared with baseline (difference, delta - Δ) of white blood cells, platelets and inflammatory indices, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII, platelets x NLR), their comparison with baseline values and correlation with treatment response, overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The baseline and Δ cut-offs were identified by ROC curves for OS. Results: The analysis was performed on 422 mRCC pts (74% of the entire cohort). Patients with ΔNeutrophils < 730 at 2nd, 3rd and 4th cycles were more responders (p < 0.001, p = 0.003 and p < 0.001) with longer mPFS (11 vs 6.1 months, p = 0.033) and mOS (46.9 vs 20.8 months, p = 0.046) compared to ΔNeutrophils ≥ 730. There was a significant interaction between baseline and ΔNeutrophils on PFS (p = 0.047). Pts with baseline neutrophils ≥ 4330/mm3 had longer mPFS when ΔNeutrophils < 730 (p = 0.002), whilst no difference was observed in those pts with baseline neutrophils < 4330/mm3 according to ΔNeutrophils (p = 0.46). Similar non-significant trends were observed in mOS. Patients with ΔNLR < 0.5 at 3rd and 4th cycles were more responders (p = 0.004 and p = 0.001, respectively) with doubled mPFS (12.1 vs 6.4 months, p = 0.007) and mOS (46.9 vs 21.7 months, p = 0.062) compared to ΔNLR ≥ 0.5. No significant interaction between baseline NLR and ΔNLR was observed in PFS and OS, suggesting a similar association between ΔNLR and PFS or OS, regardless of the baseline NLR cut-off of 3.2. The multivariable analyses confirmed all these results. Conclusions: The early assessment of NLR and neutrophils variations during immunotherapy for mRCC pts is a promising, affordable and non-invasive prognostic tool. Prospective and external validation analyses are warranted

    The prognostic role of nephrectomy in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with immunotherapy according to the novel prognostic Meet-URO score: Subanalysis of the Meet-URO 15 study

    Get PDF
    Background: Most of mRCC pts with favorable and intermediate prognosis, according to the IMDC classification, are offered a nephrectomy. However, in the immunotherapy era, the role of nephrectomy is still unclear. In the Meet-URO 15 study we reported the higher prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score compared to the IMDC score, by the addition of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the presence of bone metastases to the IMDC score, identifying five categories with progressively worse prognosis. For this reason, we aimed to explore the prognostic impact of the previous nephrectomy (PN) on mRCC pts receiving immunotherapy and according to the Meet-URO score groups. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicentric retrospective analysis on 571 pretreated mRCC pts receiving nivolumab. Univariable analysis of the correlation between PN and overall survival (OS) and multivariate analysis adjusted for IMDC score, therapy line, NLR and metastatic sites were performed. The interaction of PN with the Meet-URO prognostic groups was then evaluated. Results: 503/571 pts (88%) underwent PN. A reduced risk of death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; p< 0.001) and higher mOS and OS rate were observed in pts with PN than without (mOS: 36 vs 13 monhts; 1-year-OS 72% vs 52% and 2-year-OS 57% vs 24%, respectively). The reduced risk of death for pts who underwent PN was confirmed at the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.97; p= 0.032). The percentage of pts receiving PN progressively reduced through the five Meet-URO prognostic groups (PN: group 1: 98%, group 2: 95%, group 3: 84%, group 4: 79%, group 5: 59%). No significant interaction was observed between the PN and Meet-URO score when all the five groups were considered (p= 0.17). A significant interaction was observed when the Meet-URO groups 1,2 and 3 were taken together (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.63; p< 0.001), highlighting the significant protective role of the PN on OS for these three groups. For the Meet-URO groups 4 and 5, the interaction was indeed not significant (HR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51-1.30; p= 0.39). Conclusions: PN has a favourable prognostic impact on pretreated mRCC pts receiving immunotherapy. This benefit may be limited to mRCC pts with more favorable diseases as belonging to Meet-URO prognostic groups 1, 2 and 3. Further analysis of the type of PN (i.e., radical vs cytoreductive) is ongoing and confirmatory prospective evaluations are warranted

    The Geriatric G8 Score Is Associated with Survival Outcomes in Older Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the ADHERE Prospective Study of the Meet-URO Network

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) have been increasingly offered to older patients with prostate cancer (PC). However, prognostic factors relevant to their outcome with ARPIs are still little investigated. Methods and Materials: The Meet-URO network ADHERE was a prospective multicentre observational cohort study evaluating and monitoring adherence to ARPIs metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients aged ≥70. Cox regression univariable and multivariable analyses for radiographic progression-free (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were performed. Unsupervised median values and literature-based thresholds where available were used as cut-offs for quantitative variables. Results: Overall, 234 patients were enrolled with a median age of 78 years (73–82); 86 were treated with abiraterone (ABI) and 148 with enzalutamide (ENZ). With a median follow-up of 15.4 months (mo.), the median rPFS was 26.0 mo. (95% CI, 22.8–29.3) and OS 48.8 mo. (95% CI, 36.8–60.8). At the MVA, independent prognostic factors for both worse rPFS and OS were Geriatric G8 assessment ≤ 14 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004) and PSA decline ≥50% (p < 0.001 for both); time to castration resistance ≥ 31 mo. and setting of treatment (i.e., post-ABI/ENZ) for rPFS only (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively); age ≥78 years for OS only (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Baseline G8 screening is recommended for mCRPC patients aged ≥70 to optimise ARPIs in vulnerable individuals, including early introduction of palliative care
    • …
    corecore