Maspin (mammary serine protease inhibitor), is a member of the serine protease inhibitor/non‐inhibitor superfamily. Its expression is down‐regulated in breast, prostate, gastric and melanoma cancers but over‐expressed in pancreatic, gallbladder, colorectal, and thyroid cancers suggesting that maspin may play different activities in different cell types. However, maspin expression seems to be correlated with better prognosis in prostate, bladder, lung, gastric, colorectal, head and neck, thyroid and melanoma cancer. In breast and ovarian cancer maspin significance is associated with its subcellular localization: nucleus maspin expression correlates with a good prognosis, whilst in pancreatic cancer it predicts a poor prognosis. Since tumor metastasis requires the detachment and invasion of tumor cells through the basement membrane and stroma, a selectively increased adhesion by the presence of maspin may contribute to the inhibition of tumor metastasis. Furthermore the different position of maspin inside the cell or its epigenetic modifications may explain the different behavior of the expression of maspin between tumors. The expression of maspin might be useful as a prognostic and possibly predictive factor for patients with particular types of cancer and data can guide physicians in selecting therapy. Its expression in circulating tumor cells especially in breast cancer, could be also useful in clinical practice along with other factors, such as age, comorbidities, blood examinations in order to select the best therapy to be carried out. Focusing on the malignancies in which maspin showed a positive prognostic value, therapeutic approaches studied so far aimed to re‐activate a dormant tumor suppressor gene by designed transcription factors, to hit the system that inhibits the expression of maspin, to identify natural substances that can determine the activation and the expression of maspin or possible “molecules binds” to introduce maspin in cancer cell and gene therapy capable of up‐regulating the maspin in an attempt to reduce primarily the risk of metastasis.Further studies in these directions are necessary to better define the therapeutic implication of maspin.

There is a growing body of evidence that immune response plays a large role in cancer outcome. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been used as a simple parameter of systemic inflammation in several tumors. The purpose was to investigate the association between pre-treatment NLR, disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). We reviewed the records of patients with stage I-III TNBC at our Institution from 2006 to 2012. The association between pre-treatment NLR and survival was analyzed. The difference among variables was calculated by chi-square test. DFS and OS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Cox analysis was performed to analyze clinical parameters for their prognostic relevance. A total of 90 patients were eligible. There was no significant correlation among pre-treatment NLR and various clinical pathological factors. Patients with NLR higher than 3 showed significantly lower DFS (p = 0.002) and OS (p = 0.009) than patients with NLR equal or lower than 3. The Cox proportional multivariate hazard model revealed that higher pre-treatment NLR was independently correlated with poor DFS and OS, with hazard ratio 5.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-23.88, p = 0.03) and 6.16 (95% CI 1.54-24.66, p = 0.01) respectively. Our study suggests that pre-treatment NLR may be associated with DFS and OS patients with early TNBC. Further validation and a feasibility study are required before it can be considered for clinical use.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) are characterized by aggressive tumour biology resulting in a poor prognosis. Androgen receptor (AR) is one of newly emerging biomarker in TNBC. In recent years, ARs have been demonstrated to play an important role in the genesis and in the development of breast cancer, although their prognostic role is still debated. In the present study, we explored the correlation of AR expression with clinical, pathological and molecular features and its impact on prognosis in early TNBC. Patients and Methods: ARs were considered positive in case of tumors with >10% nuclear-stained. Survival distribution was estimated by the Kaplan Meier method. The univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The difference among variables were calculated by chi-square test. Results: 81 TNBC patients diagnosed between January 2006 and December 2011 were included in the analysis. Slides were stained immunohistochemically for estrogen and progesterone receptors, HER-2, Ki-67, ALDH1, e-cadherin and AR. Of the 81 TNBC samples, 18.8% showed positive immunostaining for AR, 23.5% and 44.4% of patients were negative for e-cadherin and ALDH1, respectively. Positive AR immunostaining was inversely correlated with a higher Ki-67 (p < 0.0001) and a lympho-vascular invasion (p = 0.01), but no other variables. Univariate survival analysis revealed that AR expression was not associated with disease-free survival (p = 0.72) or overall survival (p = 0.93). Conclusions: The expression of AR is associated with some biological features of TNBC, such as Ki-67 and lympho-vascular invasion; nevertheless the prognostic significance of AR was not documented in our analysis. However, since ARs are expressed in a significant number of TNBC, prospective studies in order to determine the biological mechanisms and their potential role as novel treatment target.

After coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO, a response from the Italian Health System to react to an unprecedented condition became necessary and sudden. The COVID-19 pandemic has required oncologists to redefine clinical organization and patient management. The purpose of our study was to document the difficulties emerging during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Italian oncology. We broadcasted an electronic survey to oncologic health care professionals. It consisted of 45 questions ranging from individual perception of pandemic management by hospital centers to physicians’ and nurses’ psychological distress and patient care. A total of 383 oncology health workers participated in the survey. The majority were female (71.8%) and from central Italy (46.2%). Impressively, a total of 357 (93%) participants declared the oncologic department reorganized routine clinical activity, but only 40.5% were adequately trained about the required procedures; 20% of the survey respondents think they have not received adequate and timely protective devices. Our survey demonstrated the flexibility of oncologic teams. However, the emergency response quality has been heterogeneous, and several drawbacks have emerged from the first analyses investigating how the world of oncology changes in the COVID-19 pandemic. Information, protection, testing, and training of health care professionals are key words that should be kept in mind to encourage recovery after this tragedy and to be ready to face a similar emergency in the future.

Male breast cancer is a rare event, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast carcinomas. Although men with breast cancer had poorer survival when compared with women, data on prognosis principally derive from retrospective studies and from extrapolation of female breast cancer series. We reported the case of a very long survival patient. A caucasian 42-year-old man underwent radical mastectomy with axillary dissection for breast cancer in 1993. Pathologic stage was pT4pN0M0 infiltrating ductal carcinoma of right breast without lymph nodes metastases. Biological characterization was not available. He received adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy, six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil, then endocrine therapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and complementary radiotherapy. Then he began clinical-instrumental follow up. In May 1996, a computed tomography scan showed multiple lung metastases. Hereafter he received several oncologic treatment including seven chemotherapy and five endocrine therapy lines with two re-challenge of endocrine therapy. In October 2007 further lung progression was showed and a biopsy was performed to characterize the disease. Histological examination confirmed breast cancer metastases, immunohistochemistry showed positive staining for estrogen receptor, negative for progesterone receptor and human epithelial growth factor receptor 2, proliferative index was 21%. In April 2013, bone disease progression was evident and he received radiant treatment to sacral spine. In May 2014 an off-label treatment with exemestane and everolimus combination was approved by Ethics Committee of the Marche Region. The patient received treatment for 3 months with evident clinical benefit to subcutaneous lesions of the chest wall that were not visible nor palpable on physical examination after 1 month of treatment. That is the case of long survival male breast cancer patient with luminal B subtype and no BRCA mutations. He achieved higher progression free survival with endocrine therapy creating the rationale for last line treatment with everolimus and exemestane combination. Attending conclusive results from ongoing studies, everolimus and exemestane should not be used routinely in male metastatic breast cancer patients, but taking into account for selected cases. At the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of male beast cancer treated with exemestane and everolimus combination.

Background: In the metastatic setting, cancer patients may not benefit from standard care regimes and their diseases undergo drug resistance due to tumour cell heterogeneity and genomic landscape complexity. In recent years, there have been several attempts to personalise the diagnostic-therapeutic path and to propose novel strategies based on not only histological test results but also on each patient’s clinical history and molecular biology. Profiling molecular tests allows physicians to investigate the single tumour genomic landscape and to promote targeted approaches. The Molecular Tumour Board (MTB) is a multidisciplinary committee dedicated to selecting individualised and targeted therapeutic strategies appropriate for patients suffering from diseases that present resistance to standard care. Materials and Methods: Our MTB settled in “Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria delle Marche”, Ancona (AN), Italy, and includes oncologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, and other specialists. Clinical cases are referred by physicians to the MTB, through the Cancer and Research Centre of the Marche Region (CORM), through a telemedicine platform. Four possible molecular profiles are available: FoundationOne^® CDx e FoundationOne^®Liquid CDx and two local Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) panels, with 16 DNA genes and 10 RNA genes respectively. The resulting genetic mutations and their analyses are evaluated by all the members of the Board and a report for each patient is provided with medical recommendations. Results: from June 2021 to May 2023, we collected data from 97 referral patients (M: 49, F: 48). The mean age was 60.6 years (range 22–83 years). 90 cases were approved for testing. Only seven patients were not eligible for genomic profiling. In two patients who were eligible, molecular profiling was not performed because a tissue sample was not available. Off-label therapy was recommended for three patients. 5% of cases (5/88) showed addressable driver mutations associated with an existing targeted therapy and were immediately enrolled. Conclusions: MTB presents a powerful tool for offering precise medical goals. Our Department of Clinical Oncology also takes advantage of the important role of multidisciplinary teams, through the establishment of CORM and MTB meetings, within which there is the chance to perform NGS-based analyses. It will be important in the future to implement the use of genomic profiling to improve personalised care and to guide the choice of suitable therapies and more appropriate management of patients.