INVESTIGATING DYNAMICS OF CHANGE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES WITHIN A COMPLEXITY FRAMEWORK: APPLICATION TO THE MEANING-MAKING PROCESS

La tesi di dottorato si propone di aprire una riflessione su come misurare le dinamiche di cambiamento dei processi psicologici in ottica di complessità, presentando un’applicazione al processo di creazione di significato (meaning-making). Dopo la formulazione di una nuova definizione concettuale integrata del processo di meaning-making a seguito di una revisione sistematica (primo capitolo), si è sviluppata una nuova misura self-report del significato della vita (SMILE; situational meaning in life evaluation), validata in un campione rappresentativo nazionale e in un campione di giovani adulti emergenti (secondo capitolo). Il terzo capitolo ha visto la conduzione di due studi con l’utilizzo rispettivamente dei modelli dinamici di equazioni strutturali (DSEM) e l’approccio della Network Psychometric Analysis per indagare le dinamiche di cambiamento del processo di meaning-making nella vita quotidiana di giovani adulti che, durante la pandemia di Covid-19, hanno partecipato a due raccolte giornaliere (measurement burst design). In questi studi è stato indagato il ruolo di fattori individuali (condizione transitiva in amore e lavoro), situazionali (eventi positivi e negativi) e contestuali (pandemia) come attivatori del processo di meaning-making. Le evidenze raccolte mostrano come sia importante indagare i processi psicologici tenendo conto sia del cambiamento intra-soggetto nel tempo, sia delle differenze tra gli individui.This doctoral thesis aims to open a reflection on how to measure dynamics of change of psychological processes by presenting an application of the complexity framework to the meaning-making process. The first chapter fronts the challenge of how to conceptualize the meaning-making process, by conducting a systematic review of the literature that led toward the formulation of a new integrated conceptual definition of meaning-making. The second chapter presents the development of a new self-report measure of meaning in life (SMILE; situational meaning in life evaluation) that has been validated in a national representative sample and in a sample of emerging and young adults. The third chapter deals with the challenge of how to investigate the dynamics of change of the meaning-making process in the daily life by applying two state-of-the-art data analysis approaches, the Dynamic Structural Equation Models (DSEM) and the Multilevel Network Psychometric approach. Data from emerging and young adults were collected with a measurement burst design made of two daily diary studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The role of individual factors (transitive condition in love and work), situational factors (positive vs negative events), and contextual factors (pandemic) as activators of the meaning-making process has also been investigated

The Role of Meaning in Life During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Young Adults’ Future Perspectives in Italy and Portugal

Presence of meaning in life has been found to be adaptive during the pandemic (Humphrey & Vari, 2021; Samios et al., 2021), however, no studies were conducted to understand whether meaning in life is related to future perspectives in young adulthood. In the current study both the objective impact and the subjective impact of the COVID-19 pandemic were considered as predictive factors of young adults’ negative future perspectives through the activation of presence and search for meaning in life, in Italy and Portugal. Data were collected from emerging adults (18–35 years) between February and October 2021 via an online survey. Results showed that the objective impact of COVID-19 was not associated to neither meaning in life nor future perspectives in both countries. While the subjective COVID-19 impact was similarly associated in the two countries with both meaning in life and future perspectives, as young adults who were more worried about the pandemic effects, perceived their future more negatively and were engaged in a deeper search for meaning in life. Cross-country differences were found only in the strength of the relations between meaning in life and future perspectives. Specifically, a low presence of meaning was associated to negative future perspectives especially in Italy, while a high search for meaning was associated with negative future perspectives especially in Portugal. The present study has the merit of underlining the importance of considering subjective COVID-related worries and the role of meaning in life in the way young people cope with present and future uncertainties related to the pandemic

Alveolar pentraxin 3 as an early marker of microbiologically confirmed pneumonia: a threshold-finding prospective observational study

Introduction: Timely diagnosis of pneumonia in intubated critically ill patients is rather challenging. Pentraxin 3 (PTX3) is an acute-phase mediator produced by various cell types in the lungs. Animal studies have shown that, during pneumonia, PTX3 participates in fine-tuning of inflammation (for example, microbial clearance and recruitment of neutrophils). We previously described an association between alveolar PTX3 and lung infection in a small group of intubated patients. The aim of the present study was to determine a threshold level of alveolar PTX3 with elevated sensitivity and specificity for microbiologically confirmed pneumonia. Methods: We recruited 82 intubated patients from two intensive care units (San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy, and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA) undergoing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) as per clinical decision. We collected BAL fluid and plasma samples, together with relevant clinical and microbiological data. We assayed PTX3 and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (sTREM-1) in BAL fluid and PTX3, sTREM-1, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) in plasma. Two blinded independent physicians reviewed patient data to confirm pneumonia. We determined the PTX3 threshold in BAL fluid for pneumonia and compared it to other biomarkers. Results: Microbiologically confirmed pneumonia of bacterial (n =12), viral (n =4) or fungal (n =8) etiology was diagnosed in 24 patients (29%). PTX3 levels in BAL fluid predicted pneumonia with an area under the receiving operator curve of 0.815 (95% CI =0.710 to 0.921, P <0.0001), whereas none of the other biomarkers were effective. In particular, PTX3 levels ≥1 ng/ml in BAL fluid predicted pneumonia in univariate analysis (β =2.784, SE =0.792, P <0.001) with elevated sensitivity (92%), specificity (60%) and negative predictive value (95%). Net reclassification index PTX3 values ≥1 ng/ml in BAL fluid for pneumonia indicated gain in sensitivity and/or specificity vs. all other mediators. These results did not change when we limited our analyses only to confirmed cases of bacterial pneumonia. Moreover, when we considered only the 70 patients who fulfilled the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of pneumonia at BAL fluid sampling, the diagnostic accuracy of PTX levels was confirmed in univariate and ROC curve analysis. Conclusions: In this hypothesis-generating convenience sample, a PTX3 level ≥1 ng/ml in BAL fluid was discriminative of microbiologically confirmed pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0562-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Inclusion of Platinum Agents in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients: Development of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Recommendation by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

In the absence of identified therapeutic targets, chemotherapy is the main systemic treatment option for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The achievement of a pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy leads to good outcome, whereas patients not achieving a pCR are at high risk of relapse. Various trials have evaluated the inclusion of platinum in neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for TNBC, leading to non-univocal results. The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Guidelines on Breast Cancer developed a clinical recommendation on the addition of platinum to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for TNBC by using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and the Evidence to Decision framework (EtD). Five studies were eligible. The panel identified the following outcomes of benefit: pCR (critical), disease/event-free survival (DFS/EFS, critical), and overall survival (OS, critical). The panel identified febrile neutropenia (critical), serious adverse events (critical), anemia grade 3-4 (important), thrombocytopenia grade 3-4 (important) as outcomes of harms. The probability of pCR was higher in the platinum-based chemotherapy group versus control group (RR = 1.45, 95%CI 1.28-1.64); however, no impact on long-term outcome was observed. Neoadjuvant treatment regimens containing platinum resulted in a non-significant increase in the risk of febrile neutropenia and in a significant increase in the risk serious adverse events, G3-G4 anemia and G3-G4 thrombocytopenia: 11.3% versus 0.8%, RR = 15.66 (95%CI 6.38-38.44). The panel judged uncertain/favorable the benefit/harms balance. The panel's final recommendation was conditional in favor of the inclusion of platinum in anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant regimens for TNBC

PARP-inhibitors for BRCA1/2-related advanced HER2-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis and GRADE recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology

Background: Approximately 5-10% of unselected breast cancer (BC) patients retain a hereditary predisposition related to a germline mutation in BRCA1/2 genes. The poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib have been granted marketing authorization by both FDA and EMA for adults with BRCA1/2 germline mutations and HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced BC based on the results from the phase III OlympiAd and EMBRACA trials. Methods: The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Breast Cancer addressed two critical clinical questions, adopting the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Evidence to Decision framework (EtD), to develop recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related triple-negative (clinical question 1) and hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- (clinical question 2) advanced BC. Results: Two studies were eligible (OlympiAd and EMBRACA). For both clinical questions, the Panel judged the benefit/harm balance probably in favor of the intervention, given the favorable impact in terms of PFS, ORR, and QoL at an acceptable cost in terms of toxicity; the overall certainty of the evidence was low. The panel's final recommendations were conditional in favor of PARP-inhibitors over single-agent chemotherapy in both HR+/HER2-and triple-negative BC. Finally, the Panel identified and discussed areas of uncertainty calling for further exploration. Conclusions: The Panel of AIOM BC Clinical Practice Guideline provided clinical recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related HER2-advanced BC by adopting the GRADE methodology

Systemic pro-inflammatory response identifies patients with cancer with adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection: the OnCovid Inflammatory Score

Background: Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The systemic inflammatory response is a pathogenic mechanism shared by cancer progression and COVID-19. We investigated systemic inflammation as a driver of severity and mortality from COVID-19, evaluating the prognostic role of commonly used inflammatory indices in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer accrued to the OnCovid study. Methods: In a multicenter cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer in Europe, we evaluated dynamic changes in neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR); platelet:lymphocyte ratio (PLR); Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), renamed the OnCovid Inflammatory Score (OIS); modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS); and Prognostic Index (PI) in relation to oncological and COVID-19 infection features, testing their prognostic potential in independent training (n=529) and validation (n=542) sets. Results: We evaluated 1071 eligible patients, of which 625 (58.3%) were men, and 420 were patients with malignancy in advanced stage (39.2%), most commonly genitourinary (n=216, 20.2%). 844 (78.8%) had ≥1 comorbidity and 754 (70.4%) had ≥1 COVID-19 complication. NLR, OIS, and mGPS worsened at COVID-19 diagnosis compared with pre-COVID-19 measurement (p<0.01), recovering in survivors to pre-COVID-19 levels. Patients in poorer risk categories for each index except the PLR exhibited higher mortality rates (p<0.001) and shorter median overall survival in the training and validation sets (p<0.01). Multivariable analyses revealed the OIS to be most independently predictive of survival (validation set HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.20, p=0.001; adjusted concordance index score 0.611). Conclusions: Systemic inflammation is a validated prognostic domain in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and can be used as a bedside predictor of adverse outcome. Lymphocytopenia and hypoalbuminemia as computed by the OIS are independently predictive of severe COVID-19, supporting their use for risk stratification. Reversal of the COVID-19-induced proinflammatory state is a putative therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer

Determinants of enhanced vulnerability to coronavirus disease 2019 in UK patients with cancer: a European study

Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models. Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts. Interpretation: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice. METHODS We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented >= 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls. CONCLUSION Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19

COVID-19 Sequelae and the Host Pro-Inflammatory Response: An Analysis From the OnCovid Registry

Background: Fifteen percent of patients with cancer experience symptomatic sequelae, which impair post–COVID-19 outcomes. In this study, we investigated whether a proinflammatory status is associated with the development of COVID-19 sequelae. / Methods: OnCovid recruited 2795 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection between February 27, 2020, and February 14, 2021. This analysis focused on COVID-19 survivors who underwent a clinical reassessment after the exclusion of patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the association of inflammatory markers collected at COVID-19 diagnosis with sequelae, considering the impact of previous systemic anticancer therapy. All statistical tests were 2-sided. / Results: Of 1339 eligible patients, 203 experienced at least 1 sequela (15.2%). Median baseline C-reactive protein (CRP; 77.5 mg/L vs 22.2 mg/L, P < .001), lactate dehydrogenase (310 UI/L vs 274 UI/L, P = .03), and the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; 6.0 vs 4.3, P = .001) were statistically significantly higher among patients who experienced sequelae, whereas no association was reported for the platelet to lymphocyte ratio and the OnCovid Inflammatory Score, which includes albumin and lymphocytes. The widest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported for baseline CRP (AUC = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.69), followed by the NLR (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.61) and lactate dehydrogenase (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.61). Using a fixed categorical multivariable analysis, high CRP (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.67 to 3.91) and NLR (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.10) were confirmed to be statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of sequelae. Exposure to chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of sequelae (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91), whereas no associations with immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine therapy, and other types of systemic anticancer therapy were found. / Conclusions: Although the association between inflammatory status, recent chemotherapy and sequelae warrants further investigation, our findings suggest that a deranged proinflammatory reaction at COVID-19 diagnosis may predict for sequelae development

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

Background COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. Methods OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [ 50 center dot 7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49 center dot 3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16 center dot 6%; 95% CI 14 center dot 8-18 center dot 5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the prevaccination phase (191 [19 center dot 1%; 95% CI 16 center dot 4-22 center dot 0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16 center dot 8%; 13 center dot 8- 20 center dot 3] of 653 patients, p=0 center dot 24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6 center dot 2%; 3 center dot 5-10 center dot 2] of 256 patients, p<0 center dot 0001). In the alpha- delta phase, 84 (18 center dot 3%; 95% CI 14 center dot 6-22 center dot 7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 9- 27 center dot 3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7 center dot 4%; 95% CI 3 center dot 5-13 center dot 5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9 center dot 8%; 5 center dot 8-15 center dot 5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [ 18 center dot 5%; 16 center dot 5-20 center dot 9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0 center dot 0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 6-9 center dot 6], 11 [6 center dot 0%; 3 center dot 0-10 center dot 7] vs 148 [9 center dot 9%; 8 center dot 4- 11 center dot 6], p= 0 center dot 030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2 center dot 2%; 0 center dot 1-6 center dot 4], ten [5 center dot 4%; 2 center dot 6-10 center dot 0] vs 115 [7 center dot 7%; 6 center dot 3-9 center dot 3], p=0 center dot 037)