BackgroundIn cancer patients, malnutrition is associated with treatment toxicity, complications, reduced physical functioning, and decreased survival. The Prevalence of Malnutrition in Oncology (PreMiO) study identified malnutrition or its risk among cancer patients making their first medical oncology visit. Innovatively, oncologists, not nutritionists, evaluated the nutritional status of the patients in this study.MethodsPreMiO was a prospective, observational study conducted at 22 medical oncology centers across Italy. For inclusion, adult patients (>18 years) had a solid tumor diagnosis, were treatment-naive, and had a life expectancy >3 months. Malnutrition was identified by the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), appetite status with a visual analog scale (VAS), and appetite loss with a modified version of Anorexia-Cachexia Subscale (AC/S-12) of the Functional Assessment of Anorexia-Cachexia Therapy (FAACT).FindingsOf patients enrolled (N=1,952), 51% had nutritional impairment; 9% were overtly malnourished, and 43% were at risk for malnutrition. Severity of malnutrition was positively correlated with the stage of cancer. Over 40% of patients were experiencing anorexia, as reported in the VAS and FAACT questionnaire. During the prior six months, 64% of patients lost weight (1–10 kg).InterpretationMalnutrition, anorexia, and weight loss are common in cancer patients, even at their first visit to a medical oncology center.

In patients with head and neck cancer undergoing CCRT, the early nutritional management reduces weight loss and improve outcome.

No abstract

Background: Eribulin was recently approved in patients progressing after being treated with anthracyclines and taxanes and after two or more chemotherapy lines for advanced disease.Objectives: This multicenter observational retrospective study was performed in order to evaluate activity and tolerability of eribulin in real-world patient population.Methods: 133 advanced breast cancer patients pretreated with ≥ 2 chemotherapy lines for metastatic disease were retrospectively enrolled in the observational trial in 11 italian cancer centres.Results: A median of 5 cycles of eribulin (range, 1-15) were administered. Twenty-eight partial responses were observed, for an overall response rate of 21.1% (95%CI,14.1-28.0). A stable disease was recorded in 57 patients (42.8%), and a clinical benefit (response or stable disease lasting ≥ six months) was observed in 51 patients (38.3%, 95%CI, 30.1-46.6). The subgroup analysis showed that a significant improvement in term of partial response and clinical benefit was achieved when eribulin was administered in HER-2 negative tumors (p=0.01 and p=0.004, respectively) and when it is given as third-line (p=0.09 and p=0.02, respectively). Toxicity was manageable; fatigue is the most common side effect observed, usually of low-grade, and clearly cumulative-dose related.Conclusions: In this retrospective, observational analysis eribulin confirmed its efficacy and manageable tolerability even in real-world population and in heavily pretreated patients.

Hypothesis: Prior experimental and human studies have demonstrated the circadian organization of immune cells’ proliferation, trafficking, and antigen recognition and destruction. Nivolumab targets T(CD8) cells, the functions, and trafficking of which are regulated by circadian clocks, hence suggesting possible daily changes in nivolumab’s efficacy. Worse progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were reported for malignant melanoma patients receiving more than 20% of their immune checkpoint inhibitor infusions after 16:30 as compared to earlier in the day. Methods: Consecutive metastatic non-small-cell cancer (NSCLC) patients received nivolumab (240 mg iv q 2 weeks) at a daily time that was ‘randomly’ allocated for each course on a logistical basis by the day-hospital coordinators. The median time of all nivolumab administrations was computed for each patient. The study population was split into two timing groups based upon the median value of the median treatment times of all patients. CTCAE-toxicity rates, iRECIST-tumor responses, PFS and OS were computed according to nivolumab timing. PFS and OS curves were compared and hazard ratios (HR) were computed for all major categories of characteristics. Multivariable and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: The study accrued 95 stage-IV NSCLC patients (PS 0–1, 96%), aged 41–83 years. The majority of nivolumab administrations occurred between 9:27 and 12:54 for 48 patients (‘morning’ group) and between 12:55 and 17:14 for the other 47 (‘afternoon’ group). Median PFS (95% CL) was 11.3 months (5.5–17.1) for the ‘morning’ group and 3.1 months (1.5–4.6) for the ‘afternoon’ one (p < 0.001). Median OS was 34.2 months (15.1–53.3) and 9.6 months (4.9–14.4) for the ‘morning’ group and the ‘afternoon’ one, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable analyses identified ‘morning’ timing as a significant predictor of longer PFS and OS, with respective HR values of 0.26 (0.11–0.58) and 0.17 (0.08–0.37). The timing effect was consistent across all patient subgroups tested. Conclusions: Nivolumab was nearly four times as effective following ‘morning’ as compared to ‘afternoon’ dosing in this cohort of NSCLC patients. Prospective timing-studies are needed to minimize the risk of resistance and to maximize the benefits from immune checkpoint inhibitors.