IMPORTANCE Data about the optimal timing for the initiation of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) for advanced, well-differentiated enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are lacking. OBJECTIVETo evaluate the association of upfront PRRT vs upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy with progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with advanced enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors who experienced disease progression after treatment with somatostatin analogues (SSAs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective, multicenter cohort study analyzed the clinical records from 25 Italian oncology centers for patients aged 18 years or older who had unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, well-differentiated, grades 1 to 3 enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and received either PRRT or chemotherapy or targeted therapy after experiencing disease progression after treatment with SSAs between January 24, 2000, and July 1, 2020. Propensity score matching was done to minimize the selection bias. EXPOSURES Upfront PRRT or upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was the difference in PFS among patients who received upfront PRRT vs among those who received upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy. A secondary outcome was the difference in overall survival between these groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) were fitted in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model to adjust for relevant factors associated with PFS and were corrected for interaction with these factors. RESULTS Of 508 evaluated patients (mean ([SD] age, 55.7 [0.5] years; 278 [54.7%] were male), 329 (64.8%) received upfront PRRT and 179 (35.2%) received upfront chemotherapy or targeted therapy. The matched group included 222 patients (124 [55.9%] male; mean [SD] age, 56.1 [0.8] years), with 111 in each treatment group. Median PFS was longer in the PRRT group than in the chemotherapy or targeted therapy group in the unmatched (2.5 years [95% CI, 2.3-3.0 years] vs 0.7 years [95% CI, 0.5-1.0 years]; HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.44; P < .001]) and matched (2.2 years [95% CI, 1.8-2.8 years] vs 0.6 years [95% CI, 0.4-1.0 years]; HR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.27-0.51; P < .001]) populations. No significant differences were shown in median overall survival between the PRRT and (continued)

No abstract

PURPOSE: COVID-19 cancer patients (C19-CP) represent a population at high risk for mortality, whose clinical characteristics are still unknown in the second SARS-CoV-2 wave. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare epidemiology and clinical presentation of C19-CP referring to the emergency department (ED) of our institution (San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy), in a 3-week observation period of the first and second COVID-19 waves, starting from the introduction of the corresponding national lockdowns. METHODS: We retrieved ED admissions from March 9 to 29, 2020, for the first wave, and from October 24 to November 13, 2020, for the second wave. We collected clinical characteristics of consecutive patients with molecularly confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also considered untested or SARS-CoV-2–negative cancer patients referring to the ED in the reference time frames. RESULTS: C19-CP in the second wave exceeded those in the first wave despite the nonsignificant difference (39 of 576 v 8 of 163; P = .5). Compared with nononcological patients, C19-CP were older (median age 70 years [interquartile range 61-77] v 60 years [interquartile range 45-73]; P = .02) and presented more often with ≥ 2 comorbidities (40.4% v 24.3%; P = .02). Compared with nononcological patients, in C19-CP, respiratory failure (29 of 47 v 321 of 692; P = .049) and hospitalization (37 of 47 v 363 of 692; P = .0004) were higher, with comparable frequencies across the waves. Five of 24 and 10 of 27 hospitalized cancer patients in the first and second waves developed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: C19-CP were a vulnerable population, irrespective of the COVID-19 waves. This highlights the need to prioritize vaccinations in oncological patients to safeguard and guarantee optimal anticancer care.

Purpose: Well-differentiated lung neuroendocrine tumors (Lu-NET) are classified as typical (TC) and atypical (AC) carcinoids, based on mitotic counts and necrosis. However, prognostic factors, other than tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage and the histopathological diagnosis, are still lacking. The current study is aimed to identify potential prognostic factors to better stratify lung NET, thus, improving patients’ treatment strategy and follow-up. Methods: A multicentric retrospective study, including 300 Lung NET, all surgically removed, from Italian and Spanish Institutions. Results: Median age 61 years (13–86), 37.7% were males, 25.0% were AC, 42.0% were located in the lung left parenchyma, 80.3% presented a TNM stage I-II. Mitotic count was ≥2 per 10 high-power field (HPF) in 24.7%, necrosis in 13.0%. Median overall survival (OS) was 46.1 months (0.6–323), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 36.0 months (0.3–323). Female sex correlated with a more indolent disease (T1; N0; lower Ki67; lower mitotic count and the absence of necrosis). Left-sided primary tumors were associated with higher mitotic count and necrosis. At Cox-multivariate regression model, age, left-sided tumors, nodal (N) positive status and the diagnosis of AC resulted independent negative prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Conclusions: This study highlights that laterality is an independent prognostic factors in Lu-NETs, with left tumors being less frequent but showing a worse prognosis than right ones. A wider spectrum of clinical and pathological prognostic factors, including TNM stage, age and laterality is suggested. These parameters could help clinicians to personalize the management of Lu-NET.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Somatostatin analogs (SSA) were increasingly used as bridging strategy for delaying surgery (32%), and were self-injected or delivered by home care service in 36% and 49% of cases respectively. Treatment breaks of targeted therapies (17%), PRRT (13%), or chemotherapy (9%) were also proposed. Patients with advanced NET were considered a priority group for vaccination (94%), but not those with resected NET (19%).Conclusions: COVID-19 pandemic paved the way towards telemedicine in many institutions. While systemic treatments were generally continued, surgical interventions were delayed in 55% of cases. Regarding SSA, home care service or self-injections have been used more frequently. As the pandemic evolves, new data will be needed to design future health policy measures.