Background A platform designed to support the home management of oral anticancer treatments and provide a secure web-based patient–health care professional communication modality, ONCO-TreC, was tested in 3 cancer centers in Italy. Objective The overall aims of the trial are to customize the platform; assess the system’s ability to facilitate the shared management of oral anticancer therapies by patients and health professionals; and evaluate system usability and acceptability by patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. Methods Patients aged ≥18 years who were candidates for oral anticancer treatment as monotherapy with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 to 1 and a sufficient level of familiarity with mobile devices were eligible. ONCO-TreC consisted of a mobile app for patients and a web-based dashboard for health care professionals. Adherence to treatment (pill count) and toxicities reported by patients through the app were compared with those reported by physicians in medical records. Usability and acceptability were evaluated using questionnaires. Results A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 38 (95%) of whom were evaluable for adherence to treatment. The ability of the system to measure adherence to treatment was high, with a concordance of 97.3% (95% CI 86.1%-99.9%) between the investigator and system pill count. Only 60% (3/5) of grade 3, 54% (13/24) of grade 2, and 19% (7/36) of grade 1 adverse events reported by physicians in the case report forms were also reported in the app directly by patients. In total, 94% (33/35) of patients had ≥1 app launch each week, and the median number of daily accesses per patient was 2. Approximately 71% (27/38) and 68% (26/38) of patients used the app for messages and vital sign entering, respectively, at least once during the study period. Conclusions ONCO-TreC is an important tool for measuring and monitoring adherence to oral anticancer drugs. System usability and acceptability were very high, whereas its reliability in registering toxicity could be improved. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02921724; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02921724

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs), for their low incidence, have been often considered together. Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is the most common biliary tract malignancy, characterized by late diagnosis and poor prognosis, and although it is considered a rare tumor in western countries, other areas of the world show considerable incidence rates. In 2010, results from the large phase III ABC-02 clinical trial on GBC identified the gemcitabine and cisplatin combination as the most effective first-line regimen for both GBC and other BTCs. Since then, various systemic therapies have proven active in BTCs in both first- and second-line settings. Molecular profiling has highlighted important genetic differences between GBC and other BTCs, opening new ways for targeted therapy in advanced disease where standard chemotherapies show marginal benefit. Genome-wide data analysis have shown that GBC molecular landscape offer possible strategies for precision medicine approaches, and a better molecular understanding of the GBC is needed to better stratify patients for treatment. In this review, we discuss the molecular targetable agents for GBC, including the results that emerged by clinical trials exploring new treatment strategies.

The use of sodium levofolinate (Na-Lev) is safe in combination with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil in patients with gastrointestinal tumors treated with the FOLFIRI regimen.• A comparison with calcium levofolinate (Ca-Lev) showed a similar toxicity profile. The advantages of Na-Lev over Ca-Lev might be the faster drug preparation and the shorter time of drug administration.

In locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), the combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is a widely used treatment option. We performed a pooled analysis, including an exploratory analysis for prognostic and predictive factors, of two phase 2 trials including 73 patients with LAPC, treated with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) and hypofractionated tomotherapy. With a median follow-up of 36 months (range 1–65), median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8–13.2) and 14.3 (95% CI 12.0–18.1) months, respectively. The overall resectability rate was 23.3% (95% CI 13.6–33.0), and the R0 resection rate was 13.7% (95% CI 5.8–21.6). In the multivariate analysis, ECOG performance status (PS) 0 and low levels of CA 19–9 were associated with improved OS and PFS. Concerning OS, log(CA19–9) resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.20 (95% CI 1.02–1.42), p = 0.027. For ECOG PS 0, HR was 1.00; for PS 1, HR was 2.69 (95% CI 1.46–4.96); for PS 2, HR was 4.18 (95% CI 0.90–19.46); p = 0.003. Low CA19–9 levels were also predictive for resection, with an odds ratio of 0.71 (95% CI 0.52–0.97), p = 0.034. In conclusion, GEMOX and hypofractionated radiotherapy is a treatment option in LAPC. Further studies are needed to identify differences in tumor biology, which may help to predict resectability and prognosis.