Hypertransaminasemia in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving immune-based combinations: a meta-analysis

: Aims: We performed a meta-analysis to assess the relative risk (RR) of all-grade and grade 3-4 hypertransaminasemia in studies comparing immune-based combinations with sunitinib in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Materials & methods: Outcomes of interest included all-grade and grade 3-4 hypertransaminasemia measured as RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: RRs for all-grade hypertransaminasemia were 1.73 (95% CI: 1.25-2.4) and 1.63 (95% CI: 1.25-2.12) in patients receiving immunocombinations and sunitinib, respectively. The pooled RRs for grade 3-4 hypertransaminasemia were 3.24 and 3.04 in patients treated with immunocombinations or sunitinib. Conclusion: Immune-based combinations were associated with higher hypertransaminasemia risk. Physicians should pay attention to these common but overlooked events. Careful monitoring of tolerability remains a crucial need

Clinical outcomes of castration-resistant prostate cancer treatments administered as third or fourth line following failure of docetaxel and other second-line treatment: results of an Italian multicentre study

Background: The availability of new agents (NAs) active in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after docetaxel treatment (abiraterone acetate, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide) has led to the possibility of using them sequentially to obtain a cumulative survival benefit. Objective: To provide clinical outcome data relating to a large cohort of mCRPC patients who received a third-line NA after the failure of docetaxel and another NA. Design, setting, and participants: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of patients who had received at least two successive NAs after the failure of docetaxel. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The independent prognostic value of a series of pretreatment covariates on the primary outcome measure of overall survival was assessed using Cox regression analysis. Results and limitations: Weassessed260patientswhoreceivedonethird-lineNAbetween January 2012 and December 2013, including 38 who received a further NA as fourth-line therapy. The median progression-free and overall survival from the start of third-line therapy was, respectively, 4 mo and 11 mo, with no significant differences between the NAs. Performance status, and haemoglobin and alkaline phosphatase levels were the only independent prognostic factors. The limitations of the study are mainly due its retrospective nature and the small number of patients treatedwith some of the sequences. Conclusions: We were unable to demonstrate a difference in the clinical outcomes of third-line NAs regardless of previous NA therapy. Patient summary: It is debated which sequence of treatments to adopt after docetaxel. Our data do not support the superiority of any of the three new agents in third-line treatment, regardless of the previously administered new agent

Clinical nutrition in surgical oncology: Young AIOM-AIRO-SICO multidisciplinary national survey on behalf of NutriOnc research group

Malnutrition is a common condition in cancer patients which is usually associated with functional limitations, as well as increased morbidity and mortality. Based on the support of the young sections of Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) and Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO) merged into the NutriOnc Research Group, we performed a multidisciplinary national survey with the aim to define the awareness of nutritional issues among healthcare professionals delivering anticancer care. The questionnaire was organized in four sections, as follows: Knowledge and practices regarding Nutritional Management of cancer patients; Timing of screening and assessment of Nutritional Status; Nutritional Treatment and prescription criteria; Immunonutrition and educational topics. The modules focused on esophagogastric, hepato-bilio-pancreatic and colorectal malignancies. Overall, 215 physicians completed the survey. As regards the management of Nutritional Status of cancer patients, many responders adopted the ERAS program (49.3%), while a consistent number of professionals did not follow a specific validated nutritional care protocol (41.8%), mainly due to lack of educational courses (14.5%) and financial support (15.3%). Nearly all the included institutions had a multidisciplinary team (92%) to finalize the treatment decision-making. Cancer patients routinely underwent nutritional screening according to 57.2% of interviewed physicians. The timing of nutritional assessment was at diagnosis (37.8%), before surgery (25.9%), after surgery (16.7%), before radiochemotherapy (13.5%) and after radiochemotherapy (7%). Most of the responders reported that nutritional status was assessed throughout the duration of cancer treatments (55.6%). An important gap between current delivery and need of nutritional assessment persists. The development of specific and defined care protocols and the adherence to these tools may be the key to improving nutritional support management in clinical practice