In Reply

This response to Migliore et al. further discusses the surgical resection of patients with lung metastases from colorectal cancers

Unusual paraneoplastic neurological syndrome secondary to a well differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Paraneoplastic neurological syndrome (PNS) is a heterogeneous group of disorders affecting any part of the nervous system, in a patient affected by cancer. PNS is estimated to occur in 0.01 to 8 % of cancer patients, with higher incidence in those with small cell lung cancer, gynecological tumours or hematological disease. Paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration (PCD) is the most common PNS, but it has never been reported in patients with pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours. CASE PRESENTATION: A 61-year-old man presented with an unusual PNS and absence of circulating neural auto-antibodies. Subsequently, contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed a large pancreatic mass, together with multiple liver metastases, histologically diagnosed as a well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor. Initial treatment with long-acting somatostatin analogue (octreotide LAR) and prednisone achieved a biochemical response (reduction of chromogranin A level) and a radiological disease control, but patient experienced only a brief improvement of neurological symptoms. Seven months after the onset of the symptoms, he died from neurological impairment. CONCLUSIONS: PNS can be associated with metastatic non-functioning well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. These tumors may be unresponsive to treatment with somatostatin analogues and an early neurological treatment should be considered for the optimal management of these uncommon cases

PI and OPG/RANKL levels in human osteoblast cells

n/

Infections in lung cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy and targeted therapy: an overview on the current scenario

Patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer are often vulnerable to infection, and the risk is increased by tumor-associated immunosuppression and the effects of the treatments. Historically, links between the risk of infection and cytotoxic chemotherapy due to neutropenia and respiratory syndromes are well established. The advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death- ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) have changed the treatment paradigm for lung cancer patients. Our understanding of the risk of infections while administrating these drugs is evolving, as are the biological mechanisms that are responsible. In this overview, we focus on the risk of infection with the use of targeted therapies and ICIs, summarizing current evidence from preclinical and clinical studies and discussing their clinical implications

The prognostic role of baseline CEA and CA 19-9 values and their time-dependent variations in advanced colorectal cancer patients submitted to first-line therapy.

Serum marker evaluation is an easily available prognostic indicator that may help clinicians to discriminate patients with an aggressive disease; there are few and small-sized studies exploring the prognostic role of baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) values and their variations during first-line therapy, and even fewer data are available for carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9). Our aim was to analyze the role of those prognostic markers to exploit them in daily clinical practice. Data of 892 patients with marker determination before and 3 and/or 6 months during therapy were extracted from two institutional databases. Patients were grouped according to single marker variation as always negative (G0), decreasing (G1), stable (G2), or increasing (G3). We evaluated the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) of all the patents and correlated them with CEA and CA 19-9 values. A concordance between response to therapy and marker decrease was evident in 50.2% and in 34.4% of the patients for CEA and CA 19-9. Patients with low CEA or CA 19-9 baseline values had a longer PFS (15.1 vs. 10.5; 13.6 vs. 10.2 months) and OS (32.0 vs. 22.3; 30.5 vs. 20.1 months). The same results of PFS and OS were obtained by analyzing the data of the four different groups. Multivariate analyses confirmed the independent prognostic role of CEA and CA 19-9. Baseline CEA and CA 19-9 levels and their kinetics demonstrated to be independent prognostic factors. CA 19-9 dosage is not recommended; a possible role of CA 19-9 in patients with negative CEA could be worth further evaluation