Zinc oxide (ZnO) nanomaterials are used in various health-related applications, from antimicrobial textiles to wound dressing composites and from sunscreens to antimicrobial packaging. Purity, surface defects, size, and morphology of the nanoparticles are the main factors that influence the antimicrobial properties. In this study, we are comparing the properties of the ZnO nanoparticles obtained by solvolysis using a series of alcohols: primary from methanol to 1-hexanol, secondary (2-propanol and 2-butanol), and tertiary (tert-butanol). While the synthesis of ZnO nanoparticles is successfully accomplished in all primary alcohols, the use of secondary or tertiary alcohols does not lead to ZnO as final product, underlining the importance of the used solvent. The shape of the obtained nanoparticles depends on the alcohol used, from quasi-spherical to rods, and consequently, different properties are reported, including photocatalytic and antimicrobial activities. In the photocatalytic study, the ZnO obtained in 1-butanol exhibited the best performance against methylene blue (MB) dye solution, attaining a degradation efficiency of 98.24%. The comparative study among a series of usual model dyes revealed that triarylmethane dyes are less susceptible to photo-degradation. The obtained ZnO nanoparticles present a strong antimicrobial activity on a broad range of microorganisms (bacterial and fungal strains), the size and shape being the important factors. This permits further tailoring for use in medical applications.

Background: Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes are responsible for approximately 5–10% of all diagnosed cancer cases. In order to identify individuals at risk in a cost-efficient manner, family members of individuals carrying pathogenic alterations are tested only for the specific variant that was identified in their carrier relative. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical use and implementation of cascade family testing (CFT) in families of breast cancer patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in cancer-related predisposition genes. Methods: Germline sequencing was carried out with NGS technology using a 52-gene panel, and cascade testing was performed by Sanger sequencing or MLPA. Results: In a cohort of 1785 breast cancer patients (families), 20.3% were found to have PVs/LPVs. Specifically, 52.2%, 25.1%, and 22.7% of patients had positive findings in high-, intermediate-, and low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, respectively. Although CFT was recommended to all families, only 117 families (32.3%) agreed to proceed with genetic testing. Among the first-degree relatives who underwent CFT, 70.3% were female, and 108 of 121 (89.3%) were cancer free. Additionally, 42.7%, 36.7%, and 20.6% were offspring, siblings, and parents of the subject, respectively. Our data suggest that CFT was mostly undertaken (104/117, 88.8%) in families with positive findings in high-risk genes. Conclusions: Cascade family testing can be a powerful tool for primary cancer prevention by identifying at-risk family members. It is of utmost importance to implement genetic counseling approaches leading to increased awareness and communication of genetic testing results.

In the era of precision oncology, comprehensive molecular profiling is critical for guiding targeted and immunotherapy strategies. This study presents the analytical and clinical validation of a 1021-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel, designed for use with both formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue- and liquid-biopsy specimens. Analytical validation confirmed the assay’s high sensitivity and specificity across variant types—including SNVs (Single Nucleotide Variations), indels, CNVs (Copy Number Variations), and fusions—down to a 0.5% variant allele frequency. The assay also accurately identified microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB), essential biomarkers for immunotherapy. Clinical validation was performed on over 1300 solid tumor samples from diverse histologies, revealing actionable alterations in over 50% of cases. The panel detected on-label treatment biomarkers in 12.57% of patients, increasing to 20.15% when immunotherapy markers were included. Additionally, the assay demonstrated strong concordance with orthogonal methods and was effective in detecting variants in plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA in 70% of evaluable cases. These findings support the robust performance and broad clinical applicability of the 1021-gene panel for comprehensive genomic profiling in both tissue and liquid biopsies, offering a valuable tool for personalized cancer treatment.

Dabrafenib and trametinib are two available molecules that have been approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF-V600E or V600K mutations. Their combined therapy has led to long-lasting survival benefits and substantially improved outcomes. Until now, only a few cases of severe hypersensitivity reactions to dabrafenib and vemurafenib have been reported, and even fewer desensitization protocols to these molecules have been documented. We report the case of a 71-year-old female patient with metastatic melanoma harboring a BRAF-V600E mutation undergoing targeted therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib. Two weeks after the initiation of the combined treatment, she developed a hypersensitivity reaction. The cause–effect relationship between dabrafenib and the hypersensitivity reaction was demonstrated twice, when symptoms recurred upon dabrafenib reintroduction. We started a rapid 3-day dabrafenib desensitization protocol, which was well tolerated. When the patient discontinued the drug administration, we decided on a longer protocol that included more steps and more days in order to prevent the occurrence of other hypersensitivity reactions. Our patient tolerated both rapid and slow-going schedules, the first one reaching the final dose within 3 days and the second one reaching the total daily dose within 14 days. Depending on the patient’s needs, the severity of the hypersensitivity reaction and the hospital’s availability, the doctor may choose either the rapid or slow-going desensitization protocol.