In December 2019 a novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China causing many cases of severe pneumonia. World Health Organization (WHO) named this disease Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The infection has rapidly spread across China to many other countries, and on March 12, 2020 the WHO declared pandemic outbreak of COVID-19. As of May 16, 2020, COVID-19 has been diagnosed in more than 4,490,000 patients, associated to 305,976 deaths worldwide; in Italy 224,760 COVID-19 cases have been reported with 31,763 deaths. The main routes of transmission are respiratory droplets and direct contact with infected people, so numerous prevention strategies are employed to mitigate the spread of disease, including social distancing and isolation. The aim of this narrative review is to underline gender differences in epidemiology, etiopathogenesis, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnosis, prognosis and mortality of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Currently data on the sex indicators for admitted or deceased patients are only available, but there is no analysis about other gender indicators. The data considered in our study are the only currently available in the literature, but it is appropriate to implement a specific analysis with all gender indicators to identify appropriate strategies. Moreover, the evaluation of a health service efficiency is a key element to define gender outcomes. Knowing the gender differences in COVID-19 outbreak would be a fundamental tool to understand the effects of a health emergency on individuals and communities as well as to carry out effective and equitable policies, public health measures and targeted solutions.

Employing NIH3T3 transfectants with individual human ErbB receptor coding sequences as recombinant antigen sources, we detected by immunoblot analysis speci®c immunoreactivity against all four ErbB receptors among 13 of 41 sera obtained from patients with di erent types of epithelial malignancies. Overall, serum positivity was most frequently directed against ErbB2 followed by EGFR, ErbB3 and ErbB4. Speci®city patterns comprised tumor patients with unique serum reactivity against ErbB2 or ErbB4. Moreover, approximately half of the positive sera exhibited concomitant reactivity with multiple ErbB receptors including EGFR and ErbB2, EGFR and ErbB4, ErbB2 and ErbB3 or EGFR, ErbB2 and ErbB3. Serum reactivity was con®rmed for the respective ErbB receptors expressed by human tumor cells and corroborated on receptor-speci®c immunoprecipitates. Positive sera contained ErbB-speci®c antibodies of the IgG isotype. Representative immunohistochemical analysis of tumor tissues suggested overexpression of ErbB receptors for which serum antibodies were detectable in ®ve of six patients. These ®ndings implicate multiple ErbB receptors including ErbB3 and ErbB4 in addition to EGFR and ErbB2 in primary human cancer. Heterogeneity of natural ErbB-speci®c responses in cancer patients warrants their evaluation in light of immunotherapeutic approaches targeting these receptors.

No abstract

PurposeNeuropathic pain is commonly associated with cancer. Current treatments include combination opioid and adjuvant therapies, but no guidelines are available for dose escalation strategies. This phase II study compared the efficacy and tolerability of two dose escalation strategies for oxycodone and pregabalin combination therapy.MethodsPatients (N = 75) with oncological neuropathic pain, previously untreated with pregabalin, were recruited in 5 Italian institutions between 2007 and 2010. Patients were randomised to two different dose escalation strategies (arm A; N = 38) oxycodone at a fixed dose with increasing pregabalin doses; (arm B; N = 37) pregabalin at a fixed dose with increasing oxycodone doses. Patients were evaluated from daily diaries and follow-ups at 3, 7, 10, and 14 days after beginning treatment with a numerical rating scale (NRS), neuropathic pain scale (SDN), and well-being scale (ESAS). The primary endpoint was a ≥1/3 reduction in pain (NRS); secondary endpoints included the time to analgesia and adverse effects. The study had a 90% probability of detecting the best strategy for a true difference of at least 15%.ResultsMore patients in arm A (76%) than arm B (64%) achieved ≥1/3 overall pain reduction even after controlling for baseline factors (gender, baseline pain). Group A reported fewer side effects than group B; constipation 52.8% vs. 66.7%; nausea: 27.8% vs. 44.4%; drowsiness: 44.4% vs. 55.6%; confusion: 16.7% vs. 27.8%; itching: 8.3% vs. 19.4%.ConclusionsBoth strategies effectively controlled neuropathic pain, but according to the adopted selection design arm A is preferable to arm B for pain control.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00637975

BackgroundThe prognosis of early breast cancer (EBC) depends on patient and tumor characteristics. The association between tumor size, the largest diameter in TNM staging, and prognosis is well recognized. According to TNM, tumors classified as T2, could have very different volumes; e.g. a tumor of 2.1 cm has a volume of 4500 mm3, while a tumor of 4.9 cm has a volume of 60.000 mm3 even belonging to the same class. The aim of the study is to establish if the prognostic role of tumor size, expressed as diameter and volume, has been overshadowed by other factors.MethodsThe primary objective is to evaluate the association between tumor dimensions and overall survival (OS) / disease free survival (DFS), in our institution from January 1st 2005 to September 30th 2013 in a surgical T1-T2 population. Volume was evaluated with the measurement of three half-diameters of the tumor (a, b and c), and calculated using the following formula: 4/3π x a x b x c.Results341 patients with T1-T2 EBC were included. 86.5% were treated with conservative surgery. 85.1% had a Luminal subtype, 9.1% were Triple negative and 7.4% were HER2 positive. Median volume was 942 mm3 (range 0.52–31.651.2). 44 patients (12.9%) relapsed and 23 patients died. With a median follow-up of 6.5 years, the univariate analysis for DFS showed an association between age, tumor size, volume, histological grading and molecular subtype. The multivariate analysis confirmed the statistically significant association only for molecular subtype (p 0.005), with a worse prognosis for Triple negative and HER2 positive subtypes compared with Luminal (HR: 2.65; 95%CI: 1.34–5.22). Likewise for OS, an association was shown by the multivariate analysis solely for molecular subtype (HER2 and Triple negative vs. Luminal. HR: 2.83; 95% CI:1.46–5.49; p 0.002).ConclusionsIn our study, the only parameter that strongly influences survival is molecular subtype. These findings encourage clinicians to choose adjuvant treatment not based on dimensional criteria but on biological features.