Purpose: NGR-hTNF exploits the tumor-homing peptide asparagine-glycine-arginine (NGR) for selectively targeting TNF-α to an aminopeptidase N overexpressed on cancer endothelial cells. Preclinical synergism with cisplatin was displayed even at low doses. This study primarily aimed to explore the safety of low-dose NGR-hTNF combined with cisplatin in resistant/refractory malignancies. Secondary aims included pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics, and activity. Experimental Design: NGR-hTNF was escalated using a doubling-dose scheme (0.2–0.4–0.8–1.6 μg/m²) in combination with fixed-dose of cisplatin (80 mg/m²), both given intravenously once every three weeks. PKs and circulating TNF-receptors (sTNF-Rs) were assessed over the first three cycles. Results: Globally, 22 patients (12 pretreated with platinum) received a range of one to ten cycles. Consistently with the low-dose range tested, maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed at 0.2 (n = 4) and 0.4 μg/m² (n = 3). One DLT (grade 3 infusion-related reaction) was observed at 0.8 μg/m². This dose cohort was expanded to six patients without further DLTs. No DLTs were noted also at 1.6 μg/m² (n = 3). NGR-hTNF exposure increased dose-proportionally without apparent PK interactions with cisplatin. No shedding of sTNF-Rs was detected up to 0.8 μg/m². At the dose level of 0.8 μg/m², expanded to 12 patients for activity assessment, a platinum-pretreated lung cancer patient achieved a partial response lasting more than six months and five patients maintained stable disease for a median time of 5.9 months. Conclusions: The combination of NGR-hTNF 0.8 μg/m² with cisplatin 80 mg/m² showed favorable toxicity profile and promising antitumor activity. Clin Cancer Res; 17(7); 1964–72. ©2011 AACR.

Background: Patients invited to take part in a clinical trial may evoke an archetype on which they may base their decision of adherence to participation, instead of on the study itself. Methods: A 17-item, multiple choice questionnaire was developed, tested and then administered to 102 Italian-speaking patients with advanced lung or breast cancers who had never been exposed to participation in a trial. Results: The questionnaire was answered by all patients. Eighty-five percent were positive about trial participation. Demographic factors did not influence patients’ willingness to participate. Trust in the investigator (76%) or in the institute (64%) and hope of receiving a new chance for cure (78%) were cited as reasons to accept participation. A minority was concerned by potential conflicts of interest (31%) or the thought of being ‘guinea pigs’ (36%), and feared that doctors were interested in advancing their own research, even though there were more efficient drugs available (28%). Fifty percent feared receiving a little-known medicine, and 76% considered that a thorough explanation of toxicity/safety of the proposed treatment helped them decide. Conclusion: Several prejudices, fears and some hopes have been captured by the questionnaire. Understanding such specifics will improve patient information leading patients to a more conscious motivation in deciding whether to participate in a clinical trial.

In February 2020, Italy became one of the first countries to be plagued by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, COVID-19. In March 2020, the Italian government decreed a lockdown for the whole country, which overturned communication systems, hospital organization, and access to patients and their relatives and carers. This issue had a particular regard for cancer patients. Our Thoracic Oncology Division therefore reorganized patient access in order to reduce the risk of contagion and, at the same time, encourage the continuation of treatment. Our staff contacted all patients to inform them of any changes in treatment planning, check that they were taking safety measures, and ascertain their feelings and whether they had any COVID-19 symptoms. To better understand patients’ fears and expectations of during the pandemic period, we created a nine-question interview, administered from April to May 2020 to 156 patients with lung cancer. Patients were classified by age, sex, comorbidity, disease stage, prior treatment, and treatment type. The survey showed that during the pandemic period some patients experienced fear of COVID-19, in particular: women (55% vs. 33%), patients with comorbidities (24% vs. 9%), and patients who had already received prior insult (radiotherapy or surgery) on the lung (30% vs. 11%). In addition, the patients who received oral treatment at home or for whom intravenous treatment was delayed, experienced a sense of relief (90% and 72% respectively). However, only 21% of the patients were more afraid of COVID-19 than of their cancer, in particular patients with long-term (> 12 months) vs. short-term cancer diagnosis (28% vs. 12.5%, respectively). Furthermore, the quarantine period or even just the lockdown period alone, worsened the quality of life of some patients (40%), especially those in oral treatment (47%). Our data demonstrate how lung cancer patients are more afraid of their disease than of a world pandemic. Also this interview indirectly highlights the clinician’s major guiding principle in correctly and appropriately managing not just the patient’s expectations of their illness and its treatment, but also and especially of the patient’s fears.