1
|
Dottorini L, Petrelli F, Ghidini A, Rea CG, Borgonovo K, Dognini G, Parati MC, Petrò D, Ghilardi M, Luciani A. Oxaliplatin in Adjuvant Colorectal Cancer: Is There a Role in Older Patients? J Clin Oncol 2023:JCO2300354. [PMID: 37186881 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.00354] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Daniela Petrò
- Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio (BG), Italy
| | - Mara Ghilardi
- Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio (BG), Italy
| | - Andrea Luciani
- Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio (BG), Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Petrelli F, Luciani A, Borgonovo K, Ghilardi M, Parati MC, Petrò D, Lonati V, Pesenti A, Cabiddu M. Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Systematic Review of 30 Published Studies. J Med Virol 2022; 94:2837-2844. [PMID: 35118680 PMCID: PMC9015523 DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27644] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2021] [Revised: 01/24/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022]
Abstract
We analyzed published studies on the efficacy and safety of the third dose of the COVID‐19 vaccine in various general population settings. We conducted systematic searches of PubMed and EMBASE for series published in the English language through November 15, 2021, using the search terms “third” or “booster” or “three” and “dose” and “COVID‐19” or “SARS‐CoV‐2.” All articles were selected according to the MOOSE guidelines. The seroconversion risk after third doses was descriptively expressed as a pooled rate ratio ([seroconversion rate after the third dose]/[seroconversion rate after the second dose]). The search returned 30 studies that included a total of 2 734 437 vaccinated subjects. In more than 2 700 000 Israeli patients extracted from the general population, the reduction in the risk of infection ranged from 88% to 92%. Conversion rates for IgG anti‐spike ranged from 95% to 100%. In cancer or immunocompromised patients, mean IgG seroconversion was 39.4% before and 66.6% after third doses. A third dose seems necessary to protect against all COVID‐19 infection, severe disease, and death risk. We analyzed published studies on the efficacy and safety of the third dose of COVID‐19 vaccine in various settings.
A total of 30 studies that included a total of 2 734 437 vaccinated subjects.
The reduction in the risk of infection ranged from 88% to 92%.
In immunocompromised patients, mean IgG seroconversion was 39.4% before and 66.6% after third doses.
A third dose seems necessary to protect against all COVID‐19 infection, severe disease, and death risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fausto Petrelli
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Andrea Luciani
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Karen Borgonovo
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Mara Ghilardi
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Maria Chiara Parati
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Daniela Petrò
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Veronica Lonati
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Angelo Pesenti
- Laboratory medicine Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| | - Mary Cabiddu
- Oncology Unit, Medical Sciences Department, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, (BG), Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gay F, Oliva S, Petrucci MT, Conticello C, Catalano L, Corradini P, Siniscalchi A, Magarotto V, Pour L, Carella A, Malfitano A, Petrò D, Evangelista A, Spada S, Pescosta N, Omedè P, Campbell P, Liberati AM, Offidani M, Ria R, Pulini S, Patriarca F, Hajek R, Spencer A, Boccadoro M, Palumbo A. Chemotherapy plus lenalidomide versus autologous transplantation, followed by lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide maintenance, in patients with multiple myeloma: a randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:1617-29. [PMID: 26596670 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00389-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 238] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2015] [Revised: 09/04/2015] [Accepted: 10/01/2015] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-dose melphalan plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard approach in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Our aims were to compare consolidation with high-dose melphalan plus ASCT versus chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) plus lenalidomide, and maintenance with lenalidomide plus prednisone versus lenalidomide alone. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 study at 59 centres in Australia, Czech Republic, and Italy. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma aged 65 years or younger. Patients received a common induction with four 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg, days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) and subsequent chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (3 g/m(2)) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for stem-cell mobilisation and collection. Using a 2 × 2 partial factorial design, we randomised patients to consolidation with either chemotherapy plus lenalidomide (six cycles of cyclophosphamide [300 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15], dexamethasone [40 mg, days 1, 8, 15, and 22], and lenalidomide [25 mg, days 1-21]) or two courses of high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m(2)) and ASCT. We also randomised patients to maintenance with lenalidomide (10 mg, days 1-21) plus prednisone (50 mg, every other day) or lenalidomide alone. A simple randomisation sequence was used to assign patients at enrolment into one of the four groups (1:1:1:1 ratio), but the treatment allocation was disclosed only when the patient reached the end of the induction and confirmed their eligibility for consolidation. Both the patient and the treating clinician did not know the consolidation and maintenance arm until that time. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by intention-to-treat. The trial is ongoing and some patients are still receiving maintenance. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01091831. FINDINGS 389 patients were enrolled between July 6, 2009, and May 6, 2011, with 256 eligible for consolidation (127 high-dose melphalan and ASCT and 129 chemotherapy plus lenalidomide) and 223 eligible for maintenance (117 lenalidomide plus prednisone and 106 lenalidomide alone). Median follow-up was 52·0 months (IQR 30·4-57·6). Progression-free survival during consolidation was significantly shorter with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide compared with high-dose melphalan and ASCT (median 28·6 months [95% CI 20·6-36·7] vs 43·3 months [33·2-52·2]; hazard ratio [HR] for the first 24 months 2·51, 95% CI 1·60-3·94; p<0·0001). Progression-free survival did not differ between maintenance treatments (median 37·5 months [95% CI 27·8-not evaluable] with lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 28·5 months [22·5-46·5] with lenalidomide alone; HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·59-1·20; p=0·34). Fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide than with high-dose melphalan and ASCT; the most frequent were haematological (34 [26%] of 129 patients vs 107 [84%] of 127 patients), gastrointestinal (six [5%] vs 25 [20%]), and infection (seven [5%] vs 24 [19%]). Haematological serious adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and no patients allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (10%) patients assigned chemotherapy plus lenalidomide and nine (7%) allocated high-dose melphalan and ASCT. During maintenance, adverse events did not differ between groups. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [8%] of 117 patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone vs 14 [13%] of 106 allocated lenalidomide alone), infection (eight [8%] vs five [5%]), and systemic toxicities (seven [6%] vs two [2%]). Non-haematological serious adverse events were reported in 13 (11%) patients assigned lenalidomide plus prednisone versus ten (9%) allocated lenalidomide alone. Four patients died because of adverse events, three from infections (two during induction and one during consolidation) and one because of cardiac toxic effects. INTERPRETATION Consolidation with high-dose melphalan and ASCT remains the preferred option in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma, despite a better toxicity profile with chemotherapy plus lenalidomide. FUNDING Celgene.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Gay
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Stefania Oliva
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Maria Teresa Petrucci
- Department of Cellular Biotechnologies and Hematology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
| | - Concetta Conticello
- Divisione di Ematologia, Azienda Policlinico-OVE, Università di Catania, Catania, Italy
| | | | - Paolo Corradini
- Division of Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Valeria Magarotto
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Luděk Pour
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
| | | | - Alessandra Malfitano
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Daniela Petrò
- Hematology Department, Niquarda Ca'Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Evangelista
- Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino and CPO Piemonte, Turin, Italy
| | - Stefano Spada
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Norbert Pescosta
- Ematologia e Centro TMO Ospedale Centrale Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Paola Omedè
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Philip Campbell
- Haematology Department, Cancer Services, Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| | | | | | - Roberto Ria
- University of Bari Aldo Moro Medical School, Department of Biomedical Science, Internal Medicine G Baccelli Policlinico, Bari, Italy
| | - Stefano Pulini
- Dipartimento di Ematologia, Medicina Trasfusionale e Biotecnologie, U O Ematologia Clinica, Ospedale Civile Spirito Santo, Pescara, Italy
| | | | - Roman Hajek
- Department of Haematooncology, University Hospital Ostrava and University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Andrew Spencer
- Department of Clinical Haematology, Alfred Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Mario Boccadoro
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Antonio Palumbo
- Myeloma Unit, Division of Hematology, University of Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|