The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening billions of people worldwide. Tocilizumab has shown promising results in retrospective studies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with a good safety profile. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of early tocilizumab administration vs standard therapy in preventing clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial that randomized patients hospitalized between March 31 and June 11, 2020, with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive tocilizumab or standard of care in 24 hospitals in Italy. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction method with nasopharyngeal swab. Eligibility criteria included COVID-19 pneumonia documented by radiologic imaging, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FIO 2) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg, and an inflammatory phenotype defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS Patients in the experimental arm received intravenous tocilizumab within 8 hours from randomization (8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg), followed by a second dose after 12 hours. Patients in the control arm received supportive care following the protocols of each clinical center until clinical worsening and then could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES The primary composite outcome was defined as entry into the intensive care unit with invasive mechanical ventilation, death from all causes, or clinical aggravation documented by the finding of a PaO 2 /FIO 2 ratio less than 150 mm Hg, whichever came first. RESULTS A total of 126 patients were randomized (60 to the tocilizumab group; 66 to the control group). The median (interquartile range) age was 60.0 (53.0-72.0) years, and the majority of patients were male (77 of 126, 61.1%). Three patients withdrew from the study, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses. Seventeen patients of 60 (28.3%) in the tocilizumab arm and 17 of 63 (27.0%) in the standard care group showed clinical worsening within 14 days since randomization (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59-1.86). Two patients in the experimental group and 1 in the control group died before 30 days from randomization, and 6 and 5 patients were intubated in the 2 groups, respectively. The trial was prematurely interrupted after an interim analysis for futility. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and PaO 2 /FIO 2 ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg who received tocilizumab, no benefit on disease progression was observed compared with standard care. Further blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and to evaluate possible applications of tocilizumab in different stages of the disease.

PURPOSE To determine whether the administration of histology-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HT) was superior to the administration of standard anthracycline plus ifosfamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy (A+I) in high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of an extremity or the trunk wall. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Patients had localized high-risk STS (grade 3; size, ≥ 5 cm) of an extremity or trunk wall, belonging to one of the following five histologic subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS); leiomyosarcoma (LMS), synovial sarcoma (SS), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three cycles of A+I or HT. The HT regimens were as follows: trabectedin in HG-MLPS; gemcitabine plus dacarbazine in LMS; high-dose prolonged-infusion ifosfamide in SS; etoposide plus ifosfamide in MPNST; and gemcitabine plus docetaxel in UPS. Primary and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01710176 ). RESULTS Between May 2011 and May 2016, 287 patients (UPS: n = 97 [33.8%]; HG-MLPS: n = 65 [22.6%]; SS: n = 70 [24.4%]; MPNST: n = 27 [9.4%]; and LMS: n = 28 [9.8%]) were randomly assigned to either A+I or HT. At the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 52 months, the projected DFS and OS probabilities were 0.55 and 0.47 (log-rank P = .323) and 0.76 and 0.66 (log-rank P = .018) at 60 months in the A+I arm and HT arm, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSION In a population of patients with localized high-risk STS, HT was not associated with a better DFS or OS, suggesting that A+I should remain the regimen to choose whenever neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used in patients with high-risk STS.

BackgroundNeoadjuvant-chemotherapy (NAC) is considered the standard treatment for locally advanced breast carcinomas. Accurate assessment of disease response is fundamental to increase the chances of successful breast-conserving surgery and to avoid local recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast-enhanced-MRI (MRI) in the evaluation of tumor response to NAC.MethodsThis prospective study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained. Fifty-four consenting women with breast cancer and indication of NAC were consecutively enrolled between October 2012 and December 2014. Patients underwent both CESM and MRI before, during and after NAC. MRI was performed first, followed by CESM within 3 days. Response to therapy was evaluated for each patient, comparing the size of the residual lesion measured on CESM and MRI performed after NAC to the pathological response on surgical specimens (gold standard), independently of and blinded to the results of the other test. The agreement between measurements was evaluated using Lin’s coefficient. The agreement between measurements using CESM and MRI was tested at each step of the study, before, during and after NAC. And last of all, the variation in the largest dimension of the tumor on CESM and MRI was assessed according to the parameters set in RECIST 1.1 criteria, focusing on pathological complete response (pCR).ResultsA total of 46 patients (85%) completed the study. CESM predicted pCR better than MRI (Lin’s coefficient 0.81 and 0.59, respectively). Both methods tend to underestimate the real extent of residual tumor (mean 4.1mm in CESM, 7.5mm in MRI). The agreement between measurements using CESM and MRI was 0.96, 0.94 and 0.76 before, during and after NAC respectively. The distinction between responders and non-responders with CESM and MRI was identical for 45/46 patients. In the assessment of CR, sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 84%, respectively, for CESM, and 87% and 60% for MRI.ConclusionCESM and MRI lesion size measurements were highly correlated. CESM seems at least as reliable as MRI in assessing the response to NAC, and may be an alternative if MRI is contraindicated or its availability is limited.