Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread to every country around the world taking on pandemic proportions. Since 8 March 2020, the Italian government ordered a nationwide lockdown with unavoidable social isolation. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) represent the most physically and emotionally involved category. The aim of this study is to assess the social distress among HCPs in Italy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this online, totally anonymous survey, 24 multiple choice questions were posed to medical staff employed in the Italian Healthcare System during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data collection was performed from 30 March to 24 April 2020. RESULTS: A total of 600 HCPs completed the questionnaire. The majority of respondents expressed the fear of being at higher risk of contagion than the general population (83.3%) and the weighty concern of infecting their families (72.5%). An insufficient supply of personal protective equipment (PPE; P = 0.0003) and inadequate training about procedures to follow (P = 0.0092) were seen to significantly coincide with these worries. More than two-thirds declared a change in family organisation, which showed a significant correlation with the concern of infecting their relatives (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first Italian survey on social distress among HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The unavailability of PPE, screening procedures and adequate training strongly affected HCPs' emotional status. Although there was a predominance of oncologists (especially from the North of Italy), which impairs the generalisation of our findings, this survey underlined the social impact that this health emergency has had on HCPs.

Objective To report results from an integrated efficacy and safety analysis supporting the European Commission's approval of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy treatment for relapsed, platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer. Methods Efficacy was analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who had high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and received two or more prior chemotherapies (including two or more platinum-based therapies). The primary end point was investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response rate (visit cut-off: April 10, 2017). Safety was analyzed in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA mutation status or lines of prior chemotherapies, who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg in either study (visit cut-off: December 31, 2017). Results In the integrated platinum-sensitive efficacy population (n=79), objective response rate was 64.6% (95% CI, 53.0 to 75.0); 10.1% (8/79) of patients had a complete response and 54.4% (43/79) had a partial response. Median duration of response was 294 days (95% CI, 224 to 393). In the integrated safety population (n=565), the most common any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (77.7%, 439/565), asthenia/fatigue (74.7%, 422/565), vomiting (45.8%, 259/565), and hemoglobin decreased (44.2%, 250/565). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, or discontinuation in 60.2% (340/565), 46.0% (260/565), and 16.8% (95/565) of patients. Conclusions In patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, rucaparib demonstrated antitumor activity and is the first and currently the only poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved by the European Commission as treatment for this population. The safety analysis used a more recent visit cut-off date and larger population than previously published, was consistent with prior reports, and was the basis for the treatment-indication safety population in rucaparib's recently updated European Union label.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish 'International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials'. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. ; Peer reviewed