Liver transplant (LT) recipients are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2-infection (COVID-19), due to immunosuppression and comorbidities. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on LT recipients ...compared to general population in the Campania region. In this prospective double-centre study, we enrolled all consecutive adult LT recipients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection. Data were collected at diagnosis of COVID-19 and during follow-up and compared with the regional population. Thirty LT recipients (3.28%) developed SARS-CoV-2-infection (76.66% male, median age 62.61 years). Sixteen (53.33%) were symptomatic. Common symptoms were fever, cough, fatigue, and anosmia. Twenty-five (83.33%) were outpatients, 5 (16.66%) required hospitalization (6.66% admitted to Intensive Care Unit, 6.62% developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and 6.66% died). Immunosuppressors were in 3 (10%) patients. Incidence rate of COVID-19 was similar between LT patients and general population (3.28% vs 4.37%, p = 0.142) with higher rate of symptoms in LT patients (53.33% vs 15.87%, p < 0.000). At univariate analysis, hospitalization and case fatality rates were higher in LT patients compared to general population (16.66% vs 4.54%, p = 0.001; and 6.66% vs 1.76%, p = 0.041, respectively). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, LT patients with COVID-19 were more frequently symptomatic (OR 5.447 95% CI 2.437-12.177, p < 0.000), whereas hospitalization and death for COVID-19 were not significatively associated with LT condition (p = 0.724 and p = 0.462, respectively) and were comparable with general population. LT is not a risk factor for acquiring COVID-19. Nonetheless, LT patients are more frequently symptomatic, although comparable to the general population for hospitalization rate and mortality.
Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not ...available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib.
To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival.
Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34-0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue.
Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.
Safety of regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) has been recently demonstrated. We aimed to assess the survival benefit of regorafenib compared ...with best supportive care (BSC) in LT patients after sorafenib discontinuation. This observational multicenter retrospective study included LT patients with HCC recurrence who discontinued first‐line sorafenib. Group 1 comprised regorafenib‐treated patients, whereas the control group was selected among patients treated with BSC due to unavailability of second‐line options at the time of sorafenib discontinuation and who were sorafenib‐tolerant progressors (group 2). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of group 1 compared with group 2. Secondary endpoints were safety and OS of sequential treatment with sorafenib + regorafenib/BSC. Among 132 LT patients who discontinued sorafenib included in the study, 81 were sorafenib tolerant: 36 received regorafenib (group 1) and 45 (group 2) received BSC. Overall, 24 (67%) patients died in group 1 and 40 (89%) in group 2: the median OS was significantly longer in group 1 than in group 2 (13.1 versus 5.5 months; P < 0.01). Regorafenib treatment was an independent predictor of reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.16‐0.89; P = 0.02). Median treatment duration with regorafenib was 7.0 (95% CI, 5.5‐8.5) months; regorafenib dose was reduced in 22 (61%) patients for adverse events and discontinued for tumor progression in 93% (n = 28). The median OS calculated from sorafenib start was 28.8 months (95% CI, 17.6‐40.1) in group 1 versus 15.3 months (95% CI, 8.8‐21.7) in group 2 (P < 0.01). Regorafenib is an effective second‐line treatment after sorafenib in patients with HCC recurrence after LT.
Evidence of relative effectiveness of local treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is scanty. We investigated, in a retrospective cohort study, whether surgical resection, radiofrequency ...ablation (RFA), percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), and transarterial embolization with (TACE) or without (TAE) chemotherapy resulted in different survival in clinical practice. All patients first diagnosed with HCC and treated with any locoregional therapy from 1998 to 2002 in twelve Italian hospitals were eligible. Overall survival (OS) was the unique endpoint. Three main comparisons were planned: RFA versus PEI, surgical resection versus RFA/PEI (combined), TACE/TAE versus RFA/PEI (combined). Propensity score method was used to minimize bias related to non random treatment assignment. Overall 425 subjects were analyzed, with 385 (91%) deaths after a median followup of 7.7 years. OS did not significantly differ between RFA and PEI (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.79–1.57), between surgery and RFA/PEI (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64–1.41) and between TACE/TAE and RFA/PEI (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66–1.17). 5-year OS probabilities were 0.14 for RFA, 0.18 for PEI, 0.27 for surgery, and 0.15 for TACE/TAE. No locoregional treatment for HCC was found to be more effective than the comparator. Adequately powered randomized clinical trials are still needed to definitely assess relative effectiveness of locoregional HCC treatment.
Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ...lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario.
Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point.
The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014).
In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events.
Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.
•No randomised trial has been conducted to compare atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to lenvatinib.•Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib.•Lenvatinib provided longer in patients with NASH/NAFLD.•Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided longer in patients with viral aetiology.•Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab consistently reduced any toxicity and those graded as 3–4.
In this study, we present a new instrument, the Participation and Engagement Scale (PES), for the evaluation of the students' involvement in STEM-oriented activities. The instrument was administered ...to about 1000 secondary school students who participated in the activities of the Italian Piano Nazionale Lauree Scientifiche in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. The activities were carried out in a remote modality due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Through an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, it was possible to validate a two-factor structure of the instrument: satisfaction towards the activities and value of the activities. The proposed factor structure shows a good model fit, with each of the obtained scales displaying excellent reliability. Construct-related validation evidence was obtained through the Rasch analysis, which allowed further psychometric improvement of the instrument. Convergent validation evidence was established through a correlation with the academic motivation and perceived difficulties scales. Using the proposed instrument, we found no statistically significant relationships between engagement, the different types of science activities attended, and the intention to enrol in a STEM course. Implications of the study for the evaluation of public understanding of science activities in both remote and in-presence modalities are also discussed.
The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line ...lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.
A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line.
49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio HR= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn’t any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46).
Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.
•About half of progressed patients undergo second-line therapy.•Second-line TACE achieve significantly longer survivals than second-line sorafenib.•After lenvatinib, immunotherapy is the systemic treatment with the longest survival.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting.
Methods
Overall cohort included Western and Eastern ...hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea).
Results
1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (
p
< 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (
p
= 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child–Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis,
α
-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin–bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures.
Conclusion
Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR.
In this study, mesenchymal stem cells deriving from dental pulp (DPSCs) of normal human impacted third molars, previously characterized for their ability to differentiate into osteoblasts, were used. ...We observed that: i) DPSCs, undifferentiated or submitted to osteogenic differentiation, express all four subtypes of adenosine receptors (AR) and CD73, corresponding to 5′-ecto-nucleotidase; and ii) AR stimulation with selective agonists elicited a greater osteogenic cell differentiation consequent to A1 receptor (A1R) activation. Therefore, we focused on the activity of this AR. The addition of 15–60nM 2-chloro-N6-cyclopentyl-adenosine (CCPA), A1R agonist, to DPSCs at each change of the culture medium significantly increased the proliferation of cells grown in osteogenic medium after 8days in vitro (DIV) without modifying that of undifferentiated DPSCs. Better characterizing the effect of A1R stimulation on the osteogenic differentiation capability of these cells, we found that CCPA increased the: i) expression of two well known and early osteogenic markers, RUNX-2 and alkaline phosphatase (ALP), after 3 and 7DIV; ii) ALP enzyme activity at 7DIV and iii) mineralization of extracellular matrix after 21DIV. These effects, abolished by cell pre-treatment with the A1R antagonist 8-cyclopentyl-1,3-dipropyl-xanthine (DPCPX), involved the activation of the canonical Wnt signaling as, in differentiating DPSCs, CCPA significantly increased dishevelled protein and inhibited glycogen synthase kinase-3β, both molecules being downstream of Wnt receptor signal pathway. Either siRNA of dishevelled or cell pre-treatment with Dickkopf-1, known inhibitor of Wnt signaling substantially reduced either DPSC osteogenic differentiation or its enhancement promoted by CCPA. Summarizing, our findings indicate that the stimulation of A1R may stimulate DPSC duplication enhancing their osteogenic differentiation efficiency. These effects may have clinical implications possibly facilitating bone tissue repair and remodeling.
Display omitted
•We used dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) as an established model to study osteogenesis.•The stimulation of adenosine A1 receptors increases DPSC osteogenic differentiation.•Our findings showed that this effect is linked to the activation of Wnt pathway.
PDF
