No studies have evaluated the interaction, quality, and reliability of chemotherapy-related videos published on YouTube. The aim was to evaluate the content of YouTube videos about chemotherapy using 5 different scoring tools. In this cross-sectional register-based study, popular videos on YouTube about the following keywords were examined; “chemotherapy,” “what is chemotherapy,” “types of chemotherapy,” “chemotherapy side effects” and “chemotherapy treatments.” Quality and reliability of video content were measured using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Video Information Quality Index (VIQI), and Health on the Net code (HONcode) scores. A total of 108 videos were analyzed in the study. The median duration was 200 (30-2020) seconds and the median total number of views was 17500 (61-8615000). Among the video publishers, private hospitals were the most (n = 36, 33%). The most (n = 71, 66%) populer category of videos were patient education videos. Half (n = 55, 51%) of the narrators in the videos were only oncology professionals. Mean DISCERN, JAMA, GQS, VIQI, and HONcode scores were 2.73 ± 1.18, 1.97 ± 1.05, 2.94 ± 1.08, 14.03 ± 3.73, and 4.68 ± 2.46, respectively. A positive correlation was found between the 5 scoring points (P < .001 for all pairwise comparisons). There was a significant difference between video quality scores according to video categories and video publishers (P < .001 for both). Although most YouTube videos about chemotherapy were helpful to patients, content quality and reliability were moderate-low. Cancer patients looking for information on chemotherapy may find YouTube videos beneficial, but clinicians must be cautious to clear up any misunderstandings.

This study is aimed to investigate the prognostic significance of inflammation indices, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), and pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who had received lutetium labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (¹⁷⁷Lu–PSMA-617) therapy. Sixty-one mCRPC patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu–PSMA-617 treatment and followed up in Kocaeli University were included. The relationship between overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical and laboratory parameters was analyzed by multivariate analyses. The mean age was 69.8 ± 6.9 years. The mean follow-up time was 53.2 ± 24 months. The median OS was 14 (95% CI: 8.8–18.1) and the median PFS was 10.4 (95% CI: 4.7–17.2) months. NLR ≥ 2.7, PLR ≥ 134.27, SII ≥ 570.39, PIV ≥ 408.59 were considered as elevated levels. In the multivariate analysis for OS, baseline ECOG performance score (HR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.01–3.65, P = .046), high albümin (HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.16–0.82, P = .015), primary resistant total prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) (HR: 4.37, 95% CI: 1.84–10.35, P = .001), high NLR (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.66–6.65, P = .001), high MLR (HR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.35–4.76, P = .004), high PLR (HR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.23–4.96, P = .01), and high SII (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.09–4.32, P = .027) were associated with shorter OS. However, PIV was not associated with survival (P = .69). No factor other than the primer-resistant PSA could be identified as having an impact on PFS (for the PSA, HR: 4.52, 95% CI: 1.89–10.76, P = .001). In this study, pretreatment NLR, MLR, PLR, and SII demonstrate as powerful independent prognostic indices predicting survival in patients with mCRPC receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu–PSMA-617 therapy.

The most commonly recommended screening test for determining the nutritional status of hospitalized cancer patients is Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002). NUTRISCORE, on the other hand, is an outpatient cancer patient-specific nutritional screening test that is easier to administer than NRS-2002 and queries tumor location and treatment information received from the patient. We aimed to investigate the validity of NUTRISCORE, in hospitalized cancer patients. In total, 112 patients were enrolled in this study. The NRS 2002 and NUTRISCORE screening tests were performed. The data obtained with NUTRISCORE were compared to the reference test NRS-2002 using the kappa test and ROC curve analysis. The NRS-2002 identified 45.5% of patients as being at risk of malnutrition, while the NUTRISCORE test identified 48.2% (k = 0.516, p < 0.005). The AUC value was 0.759 (95% CI:0.67-0.85) as shown in the ROC analysis. Using the NRS-2002 as a reference test, the sensitivity (S), specificity (SP), Positive Predictive (PPD), and Negative Predictive (NPD) values for the NUTRISCORE test were 76.5% (95% CI:63.7-86.6), 75.4% (95.CI:63.7-85), 72.2% (95% CI:59.4-83), 79%, (95% CI:67.7-88.3) respectively. NUTRISCORE can be used for screening of malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients.

Objective: Myositis, an inflammatory disease affecting muscles, is a rare and potentially fatal immune-related adverse event associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. There are limited data on its clinical features and management. Case presentation: Atezolizumab, in combination with etoposide and carboplatin, was initiated in the patient diagnosed with metastatic small-cell lung cancer. After four cycles, maintenance atezolizumab was initiated. At the third visit of the maintenance therapy, the patient reported weakness, edema, and tightness in the muscles that had progressed over the course of a week. Mild solid-food dysphagia was also observed. Neutrophilic leukocytosis with elevated creatine phosphokinase (9234 U/L), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (111 mm/h), and transaminase levels were observed. A diagnosis of myositis was considered based on clinical findings. Atezolizumab was omitted and an oral 0.5 mg/kg/day dose of methylprednisolone was administered. The myositis resolved within 10 days. During the treatment of myositis, the patient underwent prophylactic cranial irradiation. The steroid dose was tapered off within 35 days and then atezolizumab was restarted. Conclusion: The literature contains only a few case reports about atezolizumab-induced myositis, highlighting the challenges in defining its clinical features and management. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are crucial to prevent severe complications, such as myocarditis or respiratory muscle paralysis.