Duration of symptoms, CA 19-9 serum level, and pathological grading possibly retrieved by endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy can be preoperatively used to identify patients with disease that is not suitable for up-front surgery, even if deemed resectable by high-quality imaging.

After curative resection for AVC, LNR and a cutoff of 16 resected/evaluated nodes are powerful prognostic factors. LNR might represent a major parameter for patient stratification in adjuvant treatment trials.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy nowadays represents a complex procedure and a challenge for the surgeon. Even though mortality is reported to be below 5% for experienced surgeons, morbidity is still around 30%-50%, often leading to prolongation of hospital stay, demanding postoperative investigations and procedures, and outpatient monitoring of the patients with complications. In the literature there is no agreement on the definitions of postoperative complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy, leading to a wide range of complication rates in different specialist units, particularly regarding the source of every complication, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and others such as delayed gastric emptying. Some authors have demonstrated that applying different definitions in homogeneous, single-center series, the incidence of a complication varied with statistical significance, implying the impossibility of correctly comparing different experiences. It seems essential to organize a Consensus Meeting among expert surgeons to prepare world-wide accepted definitions. The aim of this article is to review the current controversial definitions and to suggest a new clinical-based approach to the problem of the feasibility and reliability of the definitions themselves.

BACKGROUNDIn the current Phase II study, the authors evaluated the association between genomic polymorphic variants in uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase (UGT1A1), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), and thymidylate synthase (TS) genes, and the incidence of the adverse effects of irinotecan and raltitrexed in previously heavily treated patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma.METHODSFifty‐six patients received irinotecan (at a dose of 80 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 5 wks), combined with raltitrexed (at a dose of 3 mg/m2 every 3 wks). Genotyping for the MTHFR C677T polymorphism, the TATA box region in the UGT1A1 promoter, and tandem repeats in the TS promoter was performed on genomic DNA extracted from blood. Nineteen variables related to patient, disease, and treatment characteristics, together with genotypes, were analyzed using a binary logistic regression model with stepwise selection to evaluate their correlation with adverse reactions.RESULTSToxicities (determined according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria) were evaluated in 169 cycles. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported to occur in 2% of cycles, Grade 2–4 nausea was reported to occur in 19% of cycles, Grade 2–4 emesis was reported to occur in 9% of cycles, Grade 2–4 diarrhea was reported to occur in 20% of cycles, Grade 2/3 fatigue was reported to occur in 11% of cycles, and Grade 3/4 hepatic toxicity was reported to occur in 7% of cycles. Homozygosis for six TA repeats in the promoter region of the UGT1A1 gene was found to be the main predictive factor for diarrhea (P < 0.00005), emesis (P = 0.0001), and fatigue (P = 0.007). Homozygosis for two tandem repeats in the TS promoter was found to be predictive of a reduced incidence of fatigue (P = 0.044). MTHFR C677T polymorphism was not found to be associated with any adverse reaction.CONCLUSIONSIn the current study, UGT1A1 promoter polymorphism was found to be predictive of the risk of diarrhea, emesis, and fatigue caused by chemotherapy with irinotecan and raltitrexed. Screening for UGT1A1 promoter polymorphism may be clinically useful for identifying patients at a higher risk of developing a severe or potentially life‐threatening toxicity after irinotecan‐based chemotherapy. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

Background COVID-19 in Italy has led to the need to reorganize hospital protocols with a significant risk of interruption to cancer treatment programs. In this report, we will focus on a management model covering the two phases of the COVID-19 emergency, namely lockdown-phase I and post-lockdown-phase II. Methods The following steps were taken in the two phases: workload during visits and radiotherapy planning, use of dedicated routes, measures for triage areas, management of suspected and positive COVID-19 cases, personal protective equipment, hospital environments and intra-institutional meetings and tumor board management. Due to the guidelines set out by the Ministry of Health, oncological follow-up visits were interrupted during the lockdown-phase I; consequently, we set about contacting patients by telephone, with laboratory and instrumental exams being viewed via telematics. During the post-lockdown-phase II, the oncological follow-up clinic reopened, with two shifts operating daily. Results By comparing our radiotherapy activity from March 9 to May 4 2019 with the same period in 2020 during full phase I of the COVID-19 emergency, similar results were achieved. First radiotherapy visits, Simulation Computed Tomography and Linear Accelerator treatments amounted to 123, 137 and 151 in 2019 compared with 121, 135 and 170 in 2020 respectively. There were no cases of COVID-19 positivity recorded either in patients or in healthcare professionals, who were all negative to the swab tests performed. Conclusion During both phases of the COVID-19 emergency, the planned model used in our own experience guaranteed both continuity in radiotherapy treatments whilst neither reducing workload nor interrupting treatment and, as such, it ensured the safety of cancer patients, hospital environments and staff.