The term liquid biopsy (LB) refers to the use of various biological fluids as a surrogate for neoplastic tissue to achieve information for diagnostic, prognostic and predictive purposes. In the current clinical practice, LB is used for the identification of driver mutations in circulating tumor DNA derived from both tumor tissue and circulating neoplastic cells. As suggested by a growing body of evidence, however, there are several clinical settings where biological samples other than tissue could be used in the routine practice to identify potentially predictive biomarkers of either response or resistance to targeted treatments. New applications are emerging as useful clinical tools, and other blood derivatives, such as circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor RNA, microRNAs, platelets, extracellular vesicles, as well as other biofluids such as urine and cerebrospinal fluid, may be adopted in the near future. Despite the evident advantages compared with tissue biopsy, LB still presents some limitations due to both biological and technological issues. In this context, the absence of harmonized procedures corresponds to an unmet clinical need, ultimately affecting the rapid implementation of LB in clinical practice. In this position paper, based on experts’ opinions, the AIOM–SIAPEC-IAP–SIBIOC–SIF Italian Scientific Societies critically discuss the most relevant technical issues of LB, the current and emerging evidences, with the aim to optimizing the applications of LB in the clinical setting.

No abstract

Most anticancer molecules are administered in body-size-based dosing schedules, bringing up unsolved issues regarding pharmacokinetic data in heavy patients. The worldwide spread of obesity has not been matched by improved methods and strategies for tailored drug dosage in this population. The weight or body surface area (BSA)-based approaches may fail to fully reflect the complexity of the anthropometric features besides obesity in cancer patients suffering from sarcopenia. Likewise, there is a lack of pharmacokinetic data on obese patients for the majority of chemotherapeutic agents as well as for new target drugs and immunotherapy. Therefore, although the available findings point to the role of dose intensity in cancer treatment, and support full weight-based dosing, empirical dose capping often occurs in clinical practice in order to avoid toxicity. Thus a panel of experts of the Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM), Associazione Medici Diabetologi (AMD), Società Italiana Endocrinologia (SIE), and Società Italiana Farmacologia (SIF), provides here a consensus statement for appropriate cytotoxic chemotherapy and new biological cancer drug dosing in obese patients.

Malnutrition is a frequent problem in cancer patients, which leads to prolonged and repeated hospitalizations, increased treatment-related toxicity, reduced response to cancer treatment, impaired quality of life, a worse overall prognosis and the avoidable waste of health care resources. Despite being perceived as a limiting factor in oncologic treatments by both oncologists and patients, there is still a considerable gap between need and actual delivery of nutrition care, and attitudes still vary considerably among health care professionals. In the last 5 years, the Italian Intersociety Working Group for Nutritional Support in Cancer Patients (WG), has repeatedly revisited this issue and has concluded that some improvement in nutritional care in Italy has occurred, at least with regard to awareness and institutional activities. In the same period, new international guidelines for the management of malnutrition and cachexia have been released. Despite these valuable initiatives, effective structural strategies and concrete actions aimed at facing the challenging issues of nutritional care in oncology are still needed, requiring the active participation of scientific societies and health authorities.

The increasing number of examinations and interventional radiological procedures that require the administration of contrast medium (CM) in patients at risk for advanced age and/or comorbidities highlights the problem of CM-induced renal toxicity. A multidisciplinary group consisting of specialists of different disciplines—radiologists, nephrologists and oncologists, members of the respective Italian Scientific Societies—agreed to draw up this position paper, to assist clinicians increasingly facing the challenges posed by CM-related renal dysfunction in their daily clinical practice.The major risk factor for acute renal failure following CM administration (post-CM AKI) is the preexistence of renal failure, particularly when associated with diabetes, heart failure or cancer.In accordance with the recent guidelines ESUR, the present document reaffirms the importance of renal risk assessment through the evaluation of the renal function (eGFR) measured on serum creatinine and defines the renal risk cutoff when the eGFR is < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 for procedures with intravenous (i.v.) or intra-arterial (i.a.) administration of CM with renal contact at the second passage (i.e., after CM dilution with the passage into the pulmonary circulation).The cutoff of renal risk is considered an eGFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 in patients undergoing i.a. administration with first-pass renal contact (CM injected directly into the renal arteries or in the arterial district upstream of the renal circulation) or in particularly unstable patients such as those admitted to the ICU.Intravenous hydration using either saline or Na bicarbonate solution before and after CM administration represents the most effective preventive measure in patients at risk of post-CM AKI. In the case of urgency, the infusion of 1.4% sodium bicarbonate pre- and post-CM may be more appropriate than the administration of saline.In cancer patients undergoing computed tomography, pre- and post-CM hydration should be performed when the eGFR is < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 and it is also advisable to maintain a 5 to 7 days interval with respect to the administration of cisplatin and to wait 14 days before administering zoledronic acid.In patients with more severe renal risk (i.e., with eGFR < 20 ml/min/1.73 m2), particularly if undergoing cardiological interventional procedures, the prevention of post-CM AKI should be implemented through an internal protocol shared between the specialists who treat the patient.In magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using gadolinium CM, there is a lower risk of AKI than with iodinated CM, particularly if doses < 0.1 mmol/kg body weight are used and in patients with eGFR > 30 ml/min/1.73 m2. Dialysis after MRI is indicated only in patients already undergoing chronic dialysis treatment to reduce the potential risk of systemic nephrogenic fibrosis.