PURPOSE: The GOSAFE study evaluates risk factors for failing to achieve good quality of life (QoL) and functional recovery (FR) in older patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients age 70 years and older undergoing major elective colorectal surgery were prospectively enrolled. Frailty assessment was performed and outcomes, including QoL (EQ-5D-3L) recorded (3/6 months postoperatively). Postoperative FR was defined as a combination of Activity of Daily Living ≥5 + Timed Up & Go test 2. RESULTS: Prospective complete data were available for 625/646 consecutive patients (96.9%; 435 colon and 190 rectal cancer), 52.6% men, and median age was 79.0 years (IQR, 74.6-82.9 years). Surgery was minimally invasive in 73% of patients (321/435 colon; 135/190 rectum). At 3-6 months, 68.9%-70.3% patients experienced equal/better QoL (72.8%-72.9% colon, 60.1%-63.9% rectal cancer). At logistic regression analysis, preoperative Flemish Triage Risk Screening Tool ≥2 (3-month odds ratio [OR], 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.73; P = .034, 6-month OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.75; P = .027) and postoperative complications (3-month OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.42; P = .008, 6-month OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.68; P = .02) are associated with decreased QoL after colectomy. Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2 is a strong predictor of postoperative QoL decline in the rectal cancer subgroup (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.45 to 9.92; P = .006). FR was reported by 254/323 (78.6%) patients with colon and 94/133 (70.6%) with rectal cancer. Charlson Age Comorbidity Index ≥7 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.26 to 5.32; P = .009), ECOG ≥2 (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.36 to 7.20; P = .007 colon; OR, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 14.63; P = .009 rectal surgery), severe complications (OR, 17.33; 95% CI, 7.30 to 40.8; P < .001), fTRST ≥2 (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.40 to 5.25; P = .003), and palliative surgery (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.29 to 13.07; P = .017) are risk factors for not achieving FR. CONCLUSION: The majority of older patients experience good QoL and stay independent after colorectal cancer surgery. Predictors for failing to achieve these essential outcomes are now defined to guide patients' and families' preoperative counseling.

Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is a widely used therapeutic option for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, molecular predictors of bevacizumab efficacy have not yet been identified. We analyzed vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) polymorphisms in relation to response to bevacizumab. Two hundred and thirty-seven patients with mCRC enrolled onto the phase III prospective multicentre randomized “Italian Trial in Advanced Colorectal Cancer (ITACa)” trial were evaluated. One hundred fourteen patients received chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CT + B) and 123 received chemotherapy (CT) alone. Five single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (−2578, −1498, −1154, −634 and +936) for VEGF and 2 SNPs (−786, +894) and one variable number tandem repeat in intron 4 for eNOS were analyzed for each patient. The polymorphisms were assessed in relation to progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). VEGF 936C/T, eNOS +894 G/T and VNTR were significantly correlated with outcome in CT + B patients, but not in CT-only patients. In particular, patients with a specific haplotype combination of the 2 eNOS polymorphisms (defined eNOS Haplo1/Haplo1 and eNOS Haplo 2/Haplo2) showed significantly longer PFS (15.0 vs 9.1 months, P = 0.001) and OS (34.5 vs 20.5 months P = 0.002), and a higher ORR (71 vs 45.9%, P = 0.013) than those with the other genotypes, respectively. Specific eNOS polymorphisms may be capable of identifying a subset of mCRC patients who are more responsive to bevacizumab-based chemotherapy. If confirmed, these results would permit individually tailored treatment with bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials (CTs) are now more complex than ever before and require dedicated personnel (clinical research coordinators [CRCs]) to perform regulatory and administrative activities and protocol- and patient-related procedures. We developed a simple tool to measure the workload (WL) of CRCs involved in cancer research and to estimate personnel requirements within a Clinical Trial Center. METHODS: A literature review and 2-month period in which CRCs recorded their activities in a diary provided valuable information that led to the Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori Workload Assessment Tool (IWAT) being divided into three sections: Protocol, On-Treatment Patients, and Follow-Up Patients. Twelve full-time senior CRCs from three sites of the Network measured their monthly WL for 30 months to evaluate IWAT reproducibility and accuracy. RESULTS: The IWAT proved to be a user-friendly tool (3-6 minutes required for each CT), with high reproducibility (interobserver reproducibility ranged from 82% to 100% for each IWAT item). In December 2017, the Network had 185 ongoing CTs, with a median of 2.5 active centers for each CT. On the basis of 448 total IWAT measures by CRCs, the majority of trials were academic (57%) or dealt with advanced disease (77%). The median IWAT WL score for each study was 20.98 ± 22.90 (range, 2-188) and 475 ± 229 (range, 150 [junior staff] - 930 [extreme heavy WL]) for each CRC. On the basis of our experience, a monthly WL score of 500-600 was considered an appropriate value for a full-time CRC. CONCLUSION: The IWAT could prove useful in evaluating CT complexity, estimating appropriate CRC WLs, and defining personnel requirements. Independent validation by other CRCs working in different organizational contexts and in different countries is needed.

Objectives: Hydroxychloroquine has shown to have antiviral activity in vitro against coronaviruses, specifically SARS-CoV-2. It is believed to block virus infection by increasing endosomal pH required for virus cell fusion and glycosylation of viral surface proteins. In addition to its antiviral activity, hydroxychloroquine has an immune-modulating activity that may synergistically enhance its antiviral effect in vivo, making it a potentially promising drug for the prevention and the cure of SARS-CoV-19. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess whether it can be used safely to treat COVID-19 patients or to prevent infection. The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for (I) the prevention of COVID-19 or related symptoms in SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, such as as household members/contacts of COVID-19 patients and (II) the treatment of early-phase asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients. Trial design: This is a controlled, open label, cluster-randomized, superiority trial with parallel group design. Subjects will be randomized either to receive hydroxychloroquine or to observation (2:1). Participants: SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, including household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients and healthcare professionals (Group 1) or patients with COVID-19 (positive PCR test on a rhinopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2), asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic in home situations who are not undergoing treatment with any anti COVID-19 medication (Group 2), will be enrolled. Paucisymptomatic patients are defined as patients with a low number of mild symptoms. All subjects must be aged ≥18 years, male or female, must be willing and able to give informed consent and must not have any contraindications to take hydroxychloroquine (intolerance or previous toxicity for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, bradycardia or reduction in heart rhythm with arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, retinopathy, congestive heart failure with use of diuretics, favism or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, diabetes type 1, major comorbidities such as advanced chronic kidney disease or dialysis therapy, known history of ventricular arrhythmia, any oncologic/hematologic malignancy, severe neurological and mental illness, current use of medications with known significant drug-drug interactions, and known prolonged QT syndrome or current use of drugs with known QT prolongation). The study is monocentric and will be conducted at Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS. Subjects will be enrolled from a large epidemic region (North-Central Italy). The Public Health Departments of several Italian regions will collaborate by identifying potentially eligible subjects. Intervention and comparator: The participants will be randomized (2:1 randomization) to receive either hydroxychloroquine (Arm A) or to Observation (Arm B). Hydroxychloroquine will be administered with the following schedule: Group1: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1, followed by a weekly dose of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily on days 8, 15 and 22, for a total of one month of treatment. Group 2: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily for a total of 5-7 days. The comparator in this trial is observation given that currently neither treatment is administered to asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects, nor prophylaxis is available for contacts. Hydroxychloroquine will be shipped to subjects within 24 hours of randomization. Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, only telephonic interviews will be carried out and electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePRO) completed. During treatment, each subject will be contacted every other day for the first week and weekly thereafter (Group 2) or weekly (Group 1) by a study physician to assess early onset of any COVID-19 symptom or any adverse reaction to hydroxychloroquine and to check subject compliance. Furthermore, all subjects will receive periodic ePROs which may be completed through smartphone or tablets to record drug self-administration and onset of any symptom or adverse event. All subjects will be followed up for a total of 6 months by periodic telephonic interviews and ePROs. Main outcomes: The primary endpoint/outcome measure for this trial is: for Group 1, the proportion of subjects who become symptomatic and/or swab-positive in each arm within one month of randomization; for Group 2, the proportion of subjects who become swab-negative in each arm within 14 days of randomization. Randomization: All household members and/or contacts of each COVID-19 index case, and the COVID-19 patient himself/herself, fulfilling all inclusion criteria will be grouped into a single cluster and this cluster will be randomized (2:1) to either arm A or arm B. Information on each subject will be recorded in specific data records. Randomization lists will be stratified according to the following factors regarding COVID-19 index cases: 1. COVID-19 risk level on the basis of province of residence (high vs. low/intermediate); 2. Index case is a healthcare professional (yes vs.no) 3. Index case with COVID-19 treatment (yes vs. no) An independent statistician not otherwise involved in the trial will generate the allocation sequence, and COVID-19 response teams will be unaware of the allocation of clusters. Randomization will be performed through an interactive web-based electronic data-capturing database. An Independent Data Monitoring Committee has been established. Blinding (masking): This study is open label. Numbers to be randomized (sample size): For Group 1, a sample size of about 2000 SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects such as household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients will take part in the study. Assuming around 1.5-2.0 asymptomatic household members and/or contacts for each COVID-19 patient, we expect to identify approximately 1000-1300 COVID-19 index cases to be randomized. An interim analysis on efficacy is planned using standard alpha-spending function. For Group 2, sufficient power for primary objective (negative swab within 14 days of randomization) will be reached given a sample size of 300 asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 subjects in home situations not treated for COVID-19 (25%-30% of about 1000-1300 expected index cases). Since up to date reduced evidence about COVID-19 infection epidemiology, the continuous update of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the sample size estimation could be updated after a one third of population will be recruited and eventually modified according to a substantial protocol amendment. An interim analysis at 100 enrolled COVID-19 patients is planned. We have planned a Generalized Estimating Equation analysis, which is more efficient than a cluster level analysis, to take advantage of subject-specific covariates. The above reported sample size analysis is therefore to be considered conservative. Trial Status: The current version of the PROTECT trial protocol is ‘Final version, 15 April 2020’. The study started on 9^th May 2020. The first patient was enrolled on 14^th May 2020. Recruitment is expected to last through September 2020. Trial registration: The PROTECT trial is registered in the EudraCT database (no. 2020-001501-24) and in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04363827), date of registration 24 April 2020. Full protocol: The full PROTECT protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol (Protocol final version, 15^th April 2020). The study protocol has been reported in accordance with Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for elderly patients with aortic stenosis. International guidelines recommend that TAVI should be performed only in centers with on-site cardiac surgery (CS). However, rapidly evolving TAVI technology and increasing operator expertise have significantly reduced peri-procedural complications, including those requiring rescue surgery, which occur in less than 0.5% of cases. Furthermore, only a minority of major complications are treated with CS, and the outcomes remain unfavorable. TAVI in centers without CS could represent a solution to reduce waiting times and ensure continuity of care for fragile patients. “TAVI at Home” is a single-arm prospective interventional study. According to sample size calculations based on literature data, the study aims to enroll a total of 200 patients, beginning with a run-in phase of 20 patients to establish safety. The primary endpoint is 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints include technical success and the evaluation of single complications 30 days after the procedure. Hospitals without CS that are eligible to perform TAVI must have a high volume of coronary percutaneous interventions, operators with established TAVI experience, collaboration with vascular surgeons, and regular Heart Team meetings to ensure rigorous patient selection.