Conventional pharmacological therapies for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) consist of non-biological, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, among which methotrexate (MTX) is the most commonly prescribed. However, there is a lack of consensus-based clinical and therapeutic recommendations for the use of MTX in the management of patients with JIA. Therefore, the Methotrexate Advice and RecommendAtions on Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (MARAJIA) Expert Meeting was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of MTX in the treatment of JIA. The preliminary executive committee identified a total of 9 key clinical issues according to the population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) approach, and performed an evidence-based, systematic, literature review. During the subsequent Expert Meeting, the relevant evidence was assessed and graded, and 10 recommendations were made. Recommendations relating to the efficacy, optimal dosing and route of administration and duration of treatment with MTX in JIA, and to the issue of folic acid supplementation to prevent MTX side effects, use of MTX in the treatment of chronic JIA-associated uveitis, combination treatment with biologic agents, and the use of vaccinations in patients with JIA were developed. The selected topics were considered to represent clinically important issues facing clinicians caring for patients with JIA. Evidence was insufficient to formulate recommendations for the use of biomarkers predictive of treatment response. These consensus recommendations provide balanced and evidence-based recommendations designed to have broad value for physicians and healthcare clinicians involved in the clinical management of patients with JIA.

In the past decade, nine antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been approved for the treatment of various tumors, four of which specifically for solid malignancies. ADCs deliver the cytotoxic payload to the cancer site, thereby improving chemotherapy efficacy while reducing systemic drug exposure and toxicity. With their high selectivity, ADCs are associated with a manageable side-effect profile, with nausea and vomiting being among the most frequent toxicities, although this may vary according to the respective ADC and the associated payload. Information about the emetic risk of the new ADC compounds is limited. Three virtual focus groups of Italian oncologists were held to raise awareness on the importance of an antiemetic prophylaxis regimen to prevent and mitigate ADC-associated emesis and its sequelae. After reviewing published evidence and guidelines, the three expert panels shared their experience on the early use of ADCs gained through the participation in specific clinical trials and their clinical practice. The following issues were discussed: antiemetic therapy during trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment, with a protocol adopted at the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy); the use of steroids; the management of anticipatory nausea during trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy; nutritional counselling; and effective doctor–patient communication. The experts acknowledged that recommendations should be drug-specific, and formulated opinion-based advice intended to guide physicians in their daily practice until further evidence emerges.

In the absence of identified therapeutic targets, chemotherapy is the main systemic treatment option for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The achievement of a pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy leads to good outcome, whereas patients not achieving a pCR are at high risk of relapse. Various trials have evaluated the inclusion of platinum in neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for TNBC, leading to non-univocal results. The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Guidelines on Breast Cancer developed a clinical recommendation on the addition of platinum to anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for TNBC by using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and the Evidence to Decision framework (EtD). Five studies were eligible. The panel identified the following outcomes of benefit: pCR (critical), disease/event-free survival (DFS/EFS, critical), and overall survival (OS, critical). The panel identified febrile neutropenia (critical), serious adverse events (critical), anemia grade 3–4 (important), thrombocytopenia grade 3–4 (important) as outcomes of harms. The probability of pCR was higher in the platinum-based chemotherapy group versus control group (RR = 1.45, 95%CI 1.28–1.64); however, no impact on long-term outcome was observed. Neoadjuvant treatment regimens containing platinum resulted in a non-significant increase in the risk of febrile neutropenia and in a significant increase in the risk serious adverse events, G3–G4 anemia and G3–G4 thrombocytopenia: 11.3% versus 0.8%, RR = 15.66 (95%CI 6.38–38.44). The panel judged uncertain/favorable the benefit/harms balance. The panel’s final recommendation was conditional in favor of the inclusion of platinum in anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant regimens for TNBC.

Background. Regular treatment to prevent bleeding and consequent joint deterioration (prophylaxis) is the standard of care for persons with severe hemophilia A, traditionally based on intravenous infusions of the deficient clotting FVIII concentrates (CFCs). In recent years, extended half-life (EHL) CFCs and the non-replacement agent emicizumab, subcutaneously administered, have reduced the treatment burden. Methods. To compare and integrate the opinions on the different therapies available, eight hemophilia specialists were involved in drafting items of interest and relative statements through the Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE) method (“mini-Delphi”), in this way reaching consensus. Results. Eighteen items were identified, then harmonized to 10, and a statement was generated for each. These statements highlight the importance of personalized prophylaxis regimens. CFCs, particularly EHL products, seem more suitable for this, despite the challenging intravenous (i.v.) administration. Limited real-world experience, particularly in some clinical settings, and the lack of evidence on long-term safety and efficacy of non-replacement agents, require careful individual risk/benefit assessment and multidisciplinary data collection. Conclusions. The increased treatment options extend the opportunities of personalized prophylaxis, the mainstay of modern management of hemophilia. Close, long-term clinical and laboratory follow-up of patients using newer therapeutic approaches by specialized hemophilia treatment centers is needed.

Many treatment approaches are now available for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). While several societies have issued guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of NENs, there are still areas of controversy for which there is limited guidance. Expert opinion can thus be of support where firm recommendations are lacking. A group of experts met to formulate 14 statements relative to diagnosis and treatment of NENs and presented herein. The nominal group and estimate-talk-estimate techniques were used. The statements covered a broad range of topics from tools for diagnosis to follow-up, evaluation of response, treatment efficacy, therapeutic sequence, and watchful waiting. Initial prognostic characterization should be based on clinical information as well as histopathological analysis and morphological and functional imaging. It is also crucial to optimize RLT for patients with a NEN starting from accurate characterization of the patient and disease. Follow-up should be patient/tumor tailored with a shared plan about timing and type of imaging procedures to use to avoid safety issues. It is also stressed that patient-reported outcomes should receive greater attention, and that a multidisciplinary approach should be mandatory. Due to the clinical heterogeneity and relative lack of definitive evidence for NENs, personalization of diagnostic–therapeutic work-up is crucial.