Background: On February 23rd, the 1st case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was diagnosed at the University Hospital Trust of Verona, Italy. On March 13th, the Oncology Section was converted into a 22-inpatient bed coronavirus disease (COVID) Unit, and we reshaped our organisation to face the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, while maintaining oncological activities. Methods: We tracked down (i) volumes of oncological activities (January 1st -March 31st, 2020 versus the same period of 2019), (ii) patients' and caregivers' perception and (iii) SARS-CoV-2 infection rate in oncology health professionals and SARS-CoV-2 infection erelated hospital admissions of "active"' oncological patients. Results: As compared with the same trimester in 2019, the overall reduction in total numbers of inpatient admissions, chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits in JanuaryeMarch 2020 was 8%, 6% and 3%, respectively; based on the weekly average of daily accesses, reduction in some of the oncological activities became statistically significant from week 11. The overall acceptance of adopted measures, as measured by targeted questionnaires administered to a sample of 241 outpatients, was high (>70%). Overall, 8 of 85 oncology health professionals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (all but one employed in the COVID Unit, no hospital admissions and no treatment required); among 471 patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 7 had an "active"' oncological disease (2 died of infection-related complications). Conclusions: A slight, but statistically significant reduction in oncology activity was registered during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak in Verona, Italy. Organisational and protective measures adopted appear to have contributed to keep infections in both oncological patients and health professionals to a minimum.

IntroductionStudies on patient involvement show that physicians make few attempts to involve their patients who ask few questions if not facilitated. On the other hand, the patients who participate in the decision-making process show greater treatment adherence and have better health outcomes. Different methods to encourage the active participation during oncological consultation have been described; however, similar studies in Italy are lacking. The aims of the present study are to (1) assess the effects of a preconsultation intervention to increase the involvement of breast cancer patients during the consultation, and (2) explore the role of the attending companions in the information exchange during consultation.Methods and analysisAll female patients with breast cancer who attend the Oncology Out-patient Services for the first time will provide an informed consent to participate in the study. They are randomly assigned to the intervention or to the control group. The intervention consists of the presentation of a list of relevant illness-related questions, called a question prompt sheet. The primary outcome measure of the efficacy of the intervention is the number of questions asked by patients during the consultation. Secondary outcomes are the involvement of the patient by the oncologist; the patient's perceived achievement of her information needs; the patient's satisfaction and ability to cope; the quality of the doctor–patient relationship in terms of patient-centeredness; and the number of questions asked by the patient's companions and their involvement during the consultation. All outcome measures are supposed to significantly increase in the intervention group.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the local Ethics Committee of the Hospital Trust of Verona. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01510964

Tumor spread from primary cardiac sarcoma to the bone is very rare and has a poor prognosis. Only six cases have been reported in the literature. We present a 32-year-old female patient with bone metastases from primary cardiac sarcoma.

No abstract

ICI only for the possible occurrence of COVID-19. Measures for reducing hospital visits have been adopted by choosing the ICIs schedule with fewer administrations, adopting the highest labeled dose of each drug (55.8%) and/or choosing, among different ICIs for the same indication, the one with the longer interval between cycles (30.8%). 53.8% of respondents suggested the need to test for SARS-CoV-2 every cancer patient candidate to ICIs. Regarding differential diagnosis between immunerelated adverse events (irAEs) and COVID-19 manifestations, 71.2% of respondents declared to manage a patient with onset of dyspnea and cough like a COVID-19 patient until otherwise proven (ie, waiting for the result of SARS-CoV-2 test before doing other diagnostic or therapeutic procedures); however, 96.2% did not reduce the use of steroids to manage irAEs during the pandemic. No major impact of COVID-19 on physicians' attitudes towards the use of ICIs to manage specific clinical situations in different cancer types (ie, lung, breast, melanoma, urothelial) was observed.Conclusions: These results highlight the uncertainty of physicians dealing with ICIs in cancer patients during COVID-19 outbreak, supporting the need of dedicated studies on this regard.Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors.