The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic spreading worldwide, and Italy represented the first European country involved. Healthcare workers (HCWs) facing COVID-19 pandemic represented an at-risk population for new psychosocial COVID-19 strain and consequent mental health symptoms. The aim of the present study was to identify the possible impact of working contextual and personal variables (age, gender, working position, years of experience, proximity to infected patients) on professional quality of life, represented by compassion satisfaction (CS), burnout, and secondary traumatization (ST), in HCWs facing COVID-19 emergency. Further, two multivariable linear regression analyses were fitted to explore the association of mental health selected outcomes, anxiety and depression, with some personal and working characteristics that are COVID-19-related. A sample of 265 HCWs of a major university hospital in central Italy was consecutively recruited at the outpatient service of the Occupational Health Department during the acute phase of COVID-19 pandemic. HCWs were assessed by Professional Quality of Life-5 (ProQOL-5), the Nine-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and the Seven-Item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) to evaluate, respectively, CS, burnout, ST, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Females showed higher ST than males, while frontline staff and healthcare assistants reported higher CS rather than second-line staff and physicians, respectively. Burnout and ST, besides some work or personal variables, were associated to depressive or anxiety scores. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a new working challenge for HCWs and intervention strategies to prevent burnout and ST to reduce the risk of adverse mental health outcomes are needed.

A B S T R A C T PurposeMesothelin is currently considered the best available serum biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma. To examine the diagnostic accuracy and use of serum mesothelin in early diagnosis, we performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. MethodsThe literature search identified 16 diagnostic studies of serum mesothelin, measured with the Mesomark enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. IPD of 4,491 individuals were collected, including several control groups and 1,026 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Mesothelin levels were standardized for between-study differences and age, after which the diagnostic accuracy and the factors affecting it were examined with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) regression analysis. ResultsAt a common diagnostic threshold of 2.00 nmol/L, the sensitivities and specificities of mesothelin in the different studies ranged widely from 19% to 68% and 88% to 100%, respectively. This heterogeneity can be explained by differences in study population, because type of control group, mesothelioma stage, and histologic subtype significantly affected the diagnostic accuracy. The use of mesothelin in early diagnosis was evaluated by differentiating 217 patients with stage I or II epithelioid and biphasic mesothelioma from 1,612 symptomatic or high-risk controls. The resulting area under the ROC curve was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.81). At 95% specificity, mesothelin displayed a sensitivity of 32% (95% CI, 26% to 40%). ConclusionIn patients suspected of having mesothelioma, a positive blood test for mesothelin at a high-specificity threshold is a strong incentive to urge further diagnostic steps. However, the poor sensitivity of mesothelin clearly limits its added value to early diagnosis and emphasizes the need for further biomarker research.

Purpose: High levels of serum-soluble mesothelin family proteins (SMRP) have been found to be associated with malignant mesothelioma (MM), but not lung cancer (LC).To verify the clinical role of this marker for both these tumors, we tested serum SMRP in the largest population of thoracic cancers ever assembled. Experimental Design: SMRP blood concentrations were measured in 107 patients with MM, 215 patients with LC, 130 patients with benign respiratory diseases (BRD), and 262 controls. Statistical comparison between mean serum SMRP levels in all groups was done and receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to evaluate the performance of this marker. Results: SMRP levels were significantly higher in patients with MM and LC than in patients with benign respiratory diseases and controls (P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for serum SMRP discriminating MM and controls was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.83), with a best cutoff of 1.00 nmol/L (sensitivity, 68.2%; specificity, 80.5%). In both MM and LC, serum SMRP levels did not differ significantly between early and late stages. High SMRP levels proved to be an independent negative prognostic factor in patients with MM. Conclusions: Our data confirm that serum SMRP is a promising marker for the diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical monitoring of MM.We found that serum SMRP dosage may prove helpful in LC diagnosis as well.These data may also have positive repercussions on secondary preventive medical strategies for workers previously exposed to asbestos.

Our findings provide additional insights into the genetic and biological basis of inherited genetic susceptibility to DTC. Additional studies are needed to determine the role of the identified polymorphisms in the development of DTC and their possible use in the clinical practice.

No abstract