Purpose: Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods: In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results: Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion: Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

Background Cancer may cause financial difficulties, but its impact in countries with public health systems is unknown. We evaluated the association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes of cancer patients enrolled in academic clinical trials performed within the Italian public health system. Patients and methods Data were pooled from 16 prospective multicentre trials in lung, breast or ovarian cancer, using the EORTC quality of life (QOL) C30 questionnaire. Question 28 scores financial difficulties related to disease or treatment in four categories from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’. We defined financial burden (FB) as any financial difficulty reported at baseline questionnaire, and financial toxicity (FT) as score worsening in a subsequent questionnaire. We investigated (i) the association of FB with clinical outcomes (survival, global QOL response [questions 29/30] and severe toxicity), and (ii) the association of FT with survival. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression models or the Cox model adjusting for trial, gender, age, region and period of enrolment, baseline global QOL and, where appropriate, FB and global QOL response. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results At baseline 26% of the 3670 study patients reported FB, significantly correlated with worse baseline global QOL. FB was not associated with risks of death (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85–1.04, P = 0.23) and severe toxicity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76–1.06, P = 0.19) but was predictive of a higher chance of worse global QOL response (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08–1.70, P = 0.009). During treatment, 2735 (74.5%) patients filled in subsequent questionnaires and 616 (22.5%) developed FT that was significantly associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05–1.37, P = 0.007). Several sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Conclusion Even in a public health system, financial difficulties are associated with relevant cancer patients outcomes like QOL and survival. Clinical Trials number Any registered clinical trial number should be indicated after the

Background: Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients.Methods: A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival.Results: In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6–24.0,P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2–28.3,P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.Conclusions: Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.RegistrationEudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).

Angiogenesis is a complex biological process that plays a relevant role in sustaining the microenvironment, growth, and metastatic potential of several tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Bevacizumab was the first angiogenesis inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC in combination with chemotherapy; however, it was limited to patients with non-squamous histology and first-line setting. Approval was based on the results of two phase III trials (ECOG4599 and AVAIL) that demonstrated an improvement of about two months in progression-free survival (PFS) in both trials, and in the ECOG4599 trial, an improvement in overall survival (OS) also. Afterwards, other antiangiogenic agents, including sunitinib, sorafenib, and vandetanib have been unsuccessfully tested in first and successive lines. Recently, two new antiangiogenic agents (ramucirumab and nintedanib) produced a significant survival benefit in second-line setting. In the REVEL study, ramucirumab plus docetaxel prolonged the median OS of patients with any histology NSCLC when compared with docetaxel alone (10.4 versus 9.1 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.857, p = 0.0235). In the LUME-Lung 1 study, nintedanib plus docetaxel prolonged the median PFS of patients with any tumor histology (p = 0.0019), and improved OS (12.6 versus 10.3 months) in patients with adenocarcinoma. As a result, it became a new option for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and adenocarcinoma histology. Identifying predictive biomarkers to optimize the benefit of antiangiogenic drugs remains an ongoing challenge.

Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022. A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting. A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.