Homologous recombination (HR) and mismatch repair (MMR) defects are driver mutational imprints and actionable biomarkers in DNA repair-defective tumors. Although usually thought as mutually exclusive pathways, recent preclinical and clinical research provide preliminary evidence of a functional crosslink and crosstalk between HRR and MMR. Shared core proteins are identified as key players in both pathways, broadening the concept of DNA repair mechanism exclusivity in specific tumor types. These observations may result in unexplored forms of synthetic lethality or hypermutable tumor phenotypes, potentially impacting the cancer risk management, and considerably expanding in the future the therapeutic window for DNA repair-defective tumors.

Due to their interactions with the neoplasm, platelets undergo various proteomic and transcriptomic modifications, resulting in the development of what is known as the “Tumor-Educated Platelets (TEPs) phenotype”. Consequently, in addition to their suitability for Liquid Biopsy (LB) applications, they play a pivotal role in the malignancy by communicating with Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs), Tumor Microenvironment (TME), and the tumor itself through multiple mechanisms and at multiple levels, ultimately promoting the metastasis of cancer. Therefore, this Systematic Review of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library present in-depth insights into these phenomena, with the aim of enhancing the understanding of the complex interplay between TEPs and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). This endeavor serves to provide context and drive medical research efforts, which are increasingly focused on developing novel diagnostic and therapeutic technologies that leverage the specific binding of these platelets to the disease.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of Platelet Concentrates (PCs) in the contest of Hemorrhagic, Actinic, and Radiation Cystitis, plus Urethral Obstruction or Stenosis. Eligibility criteria: Open article in English or Italian regarding in situ applications of PCs for the selected pathologies. Information sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ELSEVIER. Risk of bias: High (and discussed). Methods for synthesis of results: Selection of relevant contents, resumed by digital tools, checked by authors and used throughout the manuscript. Included studies: 13 screened articles + 7 personal sources + 37 “extra” articles. Synthesis of results: Pre-clinical and clinical studies demonstrated substantial symptom relief, mucosal restoration, and improved growth factor levels, reducing recurrence rates and complications. However, preparation protocols and results varied among studies. Limitations of evidence: Frequent low-quality studies with mall sample size, plus heterogeneous experimental setups and nomenclature/preparations. Interpretation: PCs demonstrate promise due to their bioactive components, enhancing tissue repair and reducing inflammation with no significant adverse events. Despite positive outcomes in pre-clinical and clinical studies, variability in preparation protocols and small sample sizes, together with inconsistent results, highlight the need for high-quality research to validate PCs’ clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

The communication of scientific knowledge to patients and society as a whole has never been more central than in modern times. Thanks to the recent pandemic, it has become evident how Scientific Communication (SC) has evolved over time, increasingly diverging from common language. However, it is also clear that it must be properly used by healthcare professionals to avoid comprehension issues that could be severe for the audience. Presently, science and technology are at the heart of progress and innovation; therefore, the proper dissemination of accurate yet accessible information to the population is vital to ensure that no one is left behind and to promote cohesive social advancement. This review aims to analyze the notions of SC and Scientific Method (SM), examining the relationships between them and providing suggestions on how to integrate them properly in both a broader context and the specific field of communication with oncology patients.

To evaluate the role of probiotic supplementation in cancer patients and its clinical effects. English-written clinical trials, pooled-, or meta-analyses of clinical trials assessing probiotic treatments in cancer patients. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to September 2025. Narrative synthesis of included studies, stratified by assessed outcomes. 3 clinical trials, 1 in vivo study followed by a clinical trial, 2 meta-analyses and 1 pooled analysis. Across chemotherapy settings, probiotic supplementation was associated with a reduction in clinically relevant diarrhea, with the most consistent signal for severe diarrhea and for selected subgroups (e.g., patients with colostomy during irinotecan-based therapy). Meta-analytic evidence also supported improvements in other gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (nausea/vomiting, bloating, anorexia). In surgical oncology, perioperative probiotics/synbiotics were associated with faster GI functional recovery and favorable recovery-related markers in individual trials, while pooled randomized evidence in colorectal surgery indicated fewer postoperative infections and shorter length of stay; effects on anastomotic leak were inconsistent. Controlled clinical studies did not report probiotic-strain invasive infections, although rare serious events have been described in broader evidence. Heterogeneity in study designs, formulations, and outcome definitions; limited reporting of resource-utilization outcomes and adverse-event attribution; few large-scale trials; scarce direct oncologic efficacy endpoints. Probiotics appear to be a promising adjunct for supportive care in selected cancer pathways, particularly for GI toxicity and perioperative outcomes. Strain-defined, adequately powered trials with harmonized endpoints are needed to inform guideline-ready use.