The Italian Sarcoma Group performed this retrospective analysis of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, pretreated with ≥1 anthracycline-based treatment, and treated with trabectedin every three weeks. Primary endpoint was to describe real-life use of trabectedin across Italy. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Overall, 512 patients from 20 Italian centers were evaluated. Leiomyosarcoma (37.7%)/liposarcoma (30.3%) were the most prevalent histological types (abbreviated as L-sarcoma). Patients received a median of four trabectedin cycles (range: 1–40), mostly as a second-line treatment (~60% of patients). The ORR was 13.7% superior (p < 0.0001) in patients with L-sarcoma compared with patients with non-L-sarcoma (16.6% vs. 9.0%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months, whereas median overall survival (OS) was 21.6 months. Significantly better PFS and OS were observed in patients with L-sarcoma, those with objective responses and/or disease stabilization, treated in an early line and treated with reduced dose. Bone marrow toxicity (61.4%) and transaminase increases (21.9%) were the most common grade 3/4 adverse events. The results of this real-life study suggest that trabectedin is an active treatment, which is mostly given as a second-line treatment to patients with a good performance status and high-grade, metastatic L-sarcoma (clinical trial information: NCT02793050).
Background
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has triggered the disruption of health care on a global scale. With Italy tangled up in the pandemic response, oncology care has been largely diverted and cancer screenings suspended. Our multicenter Italian study aimed to evaluate whether COVID-19 has impacted access to diagnosis, staging, and treatment for patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with pre-pandemic time.
Methods
All consecutive new CRC patients referred to 8 Italian oncology institutions between March and December 2020 were included. Access rate and temporal intervals between date of symptoms onset, radiological and cytohistological diagnosis, treatment start and first radiological evaluation were analyzed and compared with the same months of 2019.
Results
A reduction (29%) in newly diagnosed CRC cases was seen when compared with 2019 (360 vs 506). New CRC patients in 2020 were less likely to be diagnosed with early stage (stages I-II-III) CRC (63% vs 78%, P < .01). Gender and sidedness were similar regardless of the year. The percentage of tumors with any mutation among BRAF, NRAS, and KRAS genes were significantly different between the 2 years (61% in 2020 vs 50% in 2019, P = .04). Timing of access to cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment for patients with CRC has not been negatively affected by the pandemic. Significantly shorter temporal intervals were observed between symptom onset and first oncological appointment (69 vs 79 days, P = .01) and between histological diagnosis and first oncological appointment (34 vs 42 days, P < .01) during 2020 compared with 2019. Fewer CRC cases were discussed in multidisciplinary meetings during 2020 (38% vs 50%, P = .01).
Conclusions
Our data highlight a significant drop in CRC diagnosis after COVID-19, especially for early stage disease. The study also reveals a remarkable setback in the multidisciplinary management of patients with CRC. Despite this, Italian oncologists were able to ensure diagnostic–therapeutic pathways proper operation after March 2020.
IntroductionPatients with metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 3 poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) and lung neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are usually treated with in first-line platinum compounds. There is no standard second-line treatment on progression. Accurate biomarkers are needed to facilitate diagnosis and prognostic assessment of patients with NEC.Methods and analysisThe SEcond-line therapy in NEuroendocrine CArcinomas (SENECA) study is a randomised, non-comparative, multicentre phase II trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) or capecitabine plus temozolomide (CAPTEM) regimens after failure of first-line chemotherapy in patients with lung NEC and GEP-NEC. Secondary aims are to correlate the serum miRNA profile and primary mutational status of MEN1, DAXX, ATRX and RB-1 with prognosis and outcome and to investigate the prognostic and predictive role of the Ki-67 score and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) or 68Ga-PET/CT. The main eligibility criteria are age ≥18 years; metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 3 lung or GEP-NECs; progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. A Bryant and Day design taking into account treatment activity and toxicity was used to estimate the sample size. All analyses will be performed separately for each treatment group in the intention-to-treat population. A total of 112 patients (56/arm) will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFIRI every 14 days or CAPTEM every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or for a maximum of 6 months. Patients undergo testing for specific biomarkers in primary tumour tissue and for miRNA in blood samples. MiRNA profiling will be performed in the first 20 patients who agree to participate in the biological substudy.Ethics and disseminationThe SENECA trial, supported by Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST), was authorised by the locals Ethics Committee and the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Results will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscripts, conference presentations and reports to relevant authorities.The study is currently open in Italy.Trail registration numberNCT03387592; Pre-results. EudraCT-2016-000767-17.Protocol versionClinical Study Protocol Version 1, 7 November 2016.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.