Oral platelet gel supernatant plus supportive medical treatment versus supportive medical treatment in the management of radiation-induced oral mucositis: a matched explorative active control trial by propensity analysis

OBJECTIVES:: In this active control trial, the rate of radio-induced WHO grade 3/4 oral mucositis and the change in quality of life, assessed by OMWQ-HN, were measured in subjects with head and neck cancer treated by platelet gel supernatant (PGS) and supportive medical treatment versus subjects treated by supportive medical treatment alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Eighty patients with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer underwent curative or adjuvant radiotherapy. All patients underwent supportive medical treatment and/or PGS at the beginning and during radiotherapy. Sixteen patients received PGS in association with supportive medical treatment. To obtain 2 groups virtually randomized for important clinical characteristics subjects were matched, by propensity analysis, with a group of subjects (64 patients) treated with supportive medical treatment alone. RESULTS:: Subjects treated with standard supportive treatment experienced significant higher WHO grade 3/4 toxicity (55%; 35/64) than subjects treated by PGS (13%; 3/16). The reduced toxicity found in PGS group paralleled with the evidence that they developed later symptoms with respect to controls. The Cox proportional hazard model indicated that patients treated with standard supportive medical treatment experienced 2.7-fold increase (hazard ratio=2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-5.7) in the occurrence of WHO grade 3/4 toxicity. PGS group significantly experienced higher quality of life than control groups as measured by OMWQ-HN. A significant decrease in the opioid analgesics usage was found in the PGS group. CONCLUSIONS:: These preliminary data should be interpreted with caution and could serve as a framework around which to design future trials

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Dose-finding study of oxaliplatin associated to capecitabinebased preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction: Proper administration timing, dose-intensity, efficacy/toxicity ratio of oxaliplatin added to fluoropyrimidin should be improved to safely perform twodrugs intensive preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This dose-finding study investigated recommended oxaliplatin dose, safety of oxaliplatin/capecitabine regimen and preliminary activity. Methods: Schedule: oxaliplatin dose-levels, 35-40 mg/m2/week; capecitabine 825 mg/m2/ twice daily, radiotherapy on rectum/nodes, 50/45 Gy, 45 and 9 boost/45 Gy, in first 5 and subsequent patients, 5 days/week, respectively; for 5 weeks. Pathologic complete response (pCR) 10% was projected in order to positively affect clinical outcome. Results: Seventeen fit < 75 years patients enrolled: median age 60; youngelderly 4 (23%); T3/T4, 15/2, N0/N1/N2, 7/9/1. At first dose-level, no dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). At second, 2 DLT, G3 mucositis, G3 thrombocytopenia, in 2/6 patients (33%). Oxaliplatin recommended dose, 40 mg/m2/week. Cumulative G3-4 toxicities: mucositis 6%, thrombocytopenia 6%. Limiting toxicity syndromes 18%, 25% in young-elderly, all single site. Objective response rate intent-to-treat 94%. Sphinter preservation 87%, pCR 6%. After 17 months follow-up, progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. Conclusions: Oxaliplatin can be safely added to preoperative capecitabinebased chemoradiotherapy at the recommended dose 40 mg/m2/week, in LARC, with promising pCR and high activity