Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy; it is highly aggressive and causes almost 125,000 deaths yearly. Despite advances in detection and cytotoxic therapies, a low percentage of patients with advanced stage disease survive 5 y after the initial diagnosis. The high mortality of this disease is mainly caused by resistance to the available therapies. Here, we profiled microRNA (miR) expression in serous epithelial ovarian carcinomas to assess the possibility of a miR signature associated with chemoresistance. We analyzed tumor samples from 198 patients (86 patients as a training set and 112 patients as a validation set) for human miRs. A signature of 23 miRs associated with chemoresistance was generated by array analysis in the training set. Quantitative RT-PCR in the validation set confirmed that three miRs (miR-484, -642, and -217) were able to predict chemoresistance of these tumors. Additional analysis of miR-484 revealed that the sensitive phenotype is caused by a modulation of tumor vasculature through the regulation of the VEGFB and VEGFR2 pathways. We present compelling evidence that three miRs can classify the response to chemotherapy of ovarian cancer patients in a large multicenter cohort and that one of these three miRs is involved in the control of tumor angiogenesis, indicating an option in the treatment of these patients. Our results suggest, in fact, that blockage of VEGF through the use of an anti-VEGFA antibody may not be sufficient to improve survival in ovarian cancer patients unless VEGFB signaling is also blocked.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors, targeting the molecules CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1, showed efficacy against several type of cancers and are currently used in clinical practice. An important biological variable that influences innate and adaptive immunity is the sex, acting through genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. The overall differences between sexes could be crucial to evaluate the response to ICIs.Materials and methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of Phase II-III Clinical Trials published up to June 2017 in which anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 were studied. We extracted the OS and PFS HR differentiated by sex from subgroups analysis of each trial. We analyzed the three classes of drugs separately.ResultsWe selected 36 Phase II-III Clinical Trials, 9 of which reported results for OS and 6 for PFS. We analyzed 2 Clinical Trials for OS with anti-CTLA-4, including 1178 patients, observing a benefit for males vs females (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55-0.77 vs HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96, p 0.078).Not statistically significant results were observed with anti-PD-1 neither for OS (males vs females: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.83 vs HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p 0.285) neither for PFS (males vs females: HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.82 vs HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66-1.09, p 0.158). We cannot perform a meta-analysis for anti-PD-L1 due to the lack of data.ConclusionsDifferent mechanisms could be involved in sex differences with regard to immunotherapy. These differences could be relevant to identify immunological targets in order to draw studies exploring novel combinations of immunotherapy agents.

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic has affected healthcare systems globally, leading to reorganization of medical activities. We performed an international survey aimed to investigate the medium- and long-term impact on oncology units. MATERIALS AND METHODS An 82-item survey was distributed from June 17 to July 14, 2020 among medical oncologists worldwide. RESULTS One hundred nine medical oncologists from 18 countries in Europe (n = 93), United States (n = 5), and Latin America (n = 11) answered the survey. A systematic tracing of COVID-19–positive patients was continued in the postacute phase by 77.1% of the centers; 64.2% of the respondents participated in a local registry and 56% in international or national registries of infected patients. Treatment adaptations were introduced, and surgery was the most affected modality being delayed or canceled in more than 10% of patients in 34% of the centers, whereas early cessation of palliative treatment was reported in 32.1% of the centers; 64.2% of respondents reported paying attention to avoid undertreatments. The use of telemedicine has been largely increased. Similarly, virtual tools are increasingly used particularly for medical education and international or national or multidisciplinary meetings. 60.6% of the participants reduced clinical activity, and 28.4% compensated by increasing their research activity. Significant reduction of clinical trial activities is expected in 37% of centers this year. The well-being of healthcare staff would not recover by the end of the year according to 18% of the participants. CONCLUSION The COVID-19 outbreak has had a major impact on oncologic activity, which will persist in the future, irrespective of geographical areas.

BackgroundCOVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA.MethodsA 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit.ResultsInvestigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres.ConclusionMany pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.