Response of a comprehensive cancer center to the COVID-19 pandemic: the experience of the Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is affecting many countries. While healthcare systems need to cope with the need to treat a large number of people with different degrees of respiratory failure, actions to preserve aliquots of the healthcare system to guarantee treatment to patients are mandatory. METHODS: In order to protect the Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano from the spread of COVID-19, a number of to-hospital and within-hospital filters were applied. Among others, a triage process to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity in patients with cancer was developed consisting of high-resolution low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan followed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nose-throat swabs whenever CT was suggestive of lung infection. To serve symptomatic patients who were already admitted to the hospital or in need of hospitalization while waiting for RT-PCR laboratory confirmation of infection, a COVID-19 surveillance zone was set up. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were screened between March 6 and April 3, 2020. Of these, 47 were hospitalized, 53 needed a differential diagnosis to continue with their cancer treatment, and 201 were about to undergo surgery. RT-PCR was positive in 13 of 40 hospitalized patients (32%), 14 of 52 day hospital patients (27%), and 6 of 201 surgical patients (3%). CONCLUSION: Applying filters to protect our comprehensive cancer center from COVID-19 spread contributed to guaranteeing cancer care during the COVID-19 crisis in Milan. A surveillance area and surgical triage allowed us to protect the hospital from as many as 33 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Safety profile and treatment response of everolimus in different solid tumors: an observational study.

AIM: Only few efforts have been taken to investigate the potential existence of disease-specific differences in the safety profile of everolimus. We analyze here the correlation between different patient and tumor characteristics on the safety profile of this molecule. Information on treatment response is also provided. METHODS: Consecutive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) or biliary tract cancer were included in this retrospective study. All patients received everolimus 10 mg/day or 5 mg/day. Clinical assessments were performed every 3 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 98 patients were enrolled: 51 with mRCC, 25 with pNET and 22 with biliary tract cancer. The incidence of toxicities (any grade) was 76% with mRCC, 64% with pNET and 95% with biliary tract cancer. Patients with biliary tract cancer also presented a higher frequency of severe toxicities: 64 versus 18% with mRCC and 32% with pNET. Multivariate analysis disclosed that biliary tract cancer (odds ratio [OR]: 23.8; 95% CI: 6.0-117.8; p < 0.0001) is a predictive factor for the development of toxicities during everolimus treatment. No correlations between liver metastasis and toxicities were identified. Disease control rate (DCR) was 45% in mRCC patients, 96% in pNET and 50% for biliary tract cancer patients. pNET tumors were associated with a higher DCR than the mRCC and biliary tract cancer (OR vs mRCC: 66.7; 95% CI: 6.2-276.5; p = 0.004; OR vs biliary tract cancer: 2.6; 95% CI: 0.5-14.2; p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the safety profile of everolimus is acceptable in patients with either mRCC or pNET. In addition, the onset of toxicities is associated with an improved DCR. In patients with biliary tract cancer, everolimus is safe but associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

Experience with sorafenib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

The molecular-targeted agent sorafenib is the first anticancer agent able to slow the progression of advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma, a tumor that was formerly refractory to conventional therapy. Experience from everyday clinical practice and investigations exploring the suitability of this agent for patients with harmful pathological conditions has extended the use of sorafenib to other settings of renal cell carcinoma and to particular risk populations. The aim of this review is to provide evidence on the most effective and safe use of sorafenib. The review pays particular attention to patients who have several comorbidities, such as impaired renal and cardiac function, and older patients whose frailty due to impaired organ function necessitates the most careful administration of targeted antineoplastic agents.

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer. An analysis of 43 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous randomized trials suggesting a benefit of unconventional fractionation in locally advanced head and neck cancer, the role of this approach in nasopharyngeal carcinoma is debatable. Based on the current clinical experience, the authors introduced hyperfractionated irradiation in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer, including nasopharyngeal tumors. The preliminary results of this treatment approach in nasopharyngeal cancer patients are presented, with special focus on the pattern of failure and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 43 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (stage II-IV, TNM 1997) underwent hyperfractionated irradiation. In 34 cases, radiotherapy was preceded by a median of three cycles of cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy. Irradiation was delivered using a shrinking-field technique up to a total dose of 74.4 Gy in 62 fractions of 1.2 Gy twice daily (minimum 6-h interval)/5 days/week. RESULTS: Acute toxicity of hyperfractionated radiotherapy was significant but tolerable. Mucositis proved the most common side effect (grade 3: 24 patients, grade 4: three patients). Severe late toxicity was not observed. 30 of 34 patients (88%) responded to induction chemotherapy. At 6 weeks after completion of radiotherapy, complete response was seen in 35 patients (81%), partial response in five (12%), stable disease in one, and progressive disease in two. After a median follow-up of 32 months, 18 patients (41%) developed progressive disease. Primary tumor progression was observed in three patients, and seven patients each showed regional lymph node progression and distant metastases. In one case both regional lymph node progression and distant metastases were diagnosed. The 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 58% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hyperfractionated radiotherapy seems a feasible and active regimen in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Accompanying acute and late toxicity is acceptable and does not compromise delivery of the planned irradiation dose. This regimen is associated with a high local control rate; relatively high nodal and distant failure, however, call for further treatment modifications, e. g., optimization of irradiation technique and/or dose escalation as well as improved systemic therapies.

XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin): active first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine has demonstrated high efficacy as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Oxaliplatin shows synergy with fluorouracil (FU), with little toxicity overlap. The XELOX regimen (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin), established in a previous dose-finding study, should improve on infused oxaliplatin with FU and leucovorin (FOLFOX) regimens. The present studies further characterize efficacy and safety of the XELOX regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The antitumor activity of XELOX was investigated in a colon cancer xenograft model. Patients with MCRC received first-line XELOX in 3-week treatment cycles: intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) (day 1) followed by oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily (day 1, evening, to day 15, morning). RESULTS: A preclinical study confirmed that capecitabine has supra-additive activity with oxaliplatin. In the clinical study, 53 of 96 patients (55%) achieved an objective response, and 30 (31%) experienced disease stabilization for >/= 3 months following treatment. After 24 months' minimum follow-up, median time to disease progression (TTP) and median overall survival were 7.7 and 19.5 months, respectively. XELOX safety was predictable and similar to the FOLFOX4 regimen, except that myelosuppression was uncommon with XELOX (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, 7%). Most adverse events were mild to moderate, the most common being acute sensory neuropathy (85%). Sixty-day, all-cause mortality was 2%. CONCLUSION: XELOX is a highly effective first-line treatment for MCRC. Response rates, TTP, and overall survival are similar to those observed with FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin combinations. XELOX provides a more convenient regimen, likely to be preferred by both patients and healthcare providers. Capecitabine has the potential to replace FU/LV in combination with oxaliplatin for MCRC.