Paolo Tralongo

Malnutrition, a key factor in oncology, affects 20–70% of cancer patients and influences both cancer risk and outcomes, being linked to decreased treatment tolerance, higher toxicity, lower quality of life, and shorter survival. Although international guidelines recommend early and systematic nutritional screening, its adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent. This study, promoted by the Italian College of Hospital Medical Oncology Directors (CIPOMO), aimed to provide a national snapshot of current organizational practices regarding nutritional screening, assessment, and management in Italian oncology centers. A 15-item survey was sent to 165 centers to investigate organizational practices and awareness of nutrition and physical activity in cancer care. Data were collected and analyzed as overall percentages. A total of 100 centers responded (61%). Although a nutritional assessment is routinely conducted at diagnosis in 67% of centers (n = 67), only 31 centers perform it for all patients. The remaining centers limit nutritional assessment to high-risk or selected patient groups. Moreover, although 86% of centers have dedicated professionals, multidisciplinary integration remains limited. Validated nutritional screening tools are used in 69% of centers, but follow-up reassessment is rarely systematic (15%). However, awareness of the importance of nutrition is high, with nearly all centers supporting educational interventions and dedicated nutritional pathways. Despite this high level of awareness, a significant gap remains between guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. Standardizing early nutritional screening, enhancing multidisciplinary collaboration, and ensuring equitable and consistent access to nutritional services are crucial to fully integrating nutrition into oncology care and improving patient outcomes.

Background: A wide percentage (25–40%) of patients affected by head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are over 70 years old, and they present with different characteristics if compared to younger patients. Elderly patients often receive less intensive, non-surgical, and non-multimodal treatments. Although age does not mean frailty, the elderly are at a higher risk of developing toxicity. In fact, several studies enrolling patients treated with cisplatin + radiotherapy (CISPLATIN + RT) or cetuximab + radiotherapy (Cet + RT) showed reduced efficacy over 65 years. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in patients with Locally Advanced HNSCC aged over 65 years, who underwent Cet-RT, diagnosed in the period between 2017 and 2024. The primary endpoint was to describe Overall Survival (OS), the secondary endpoints were Progression Free Survival (PFS) and the percentage and type of Adverse Events (AEs). Patients received a geriatric assessment using the G8 questionnaire. Results: Data regarding Eighty-Two (82) patients were analyzed, median age was 74 years (range 65–84), most patients had oral cavity (26.8%) and laryngeal cancer (37.8%). Fifty-six point one (56.1%) of patients were smokers, and 17.1% reported alcohol consumption. All patients completed radiotherapy, and 80.5% of them developed AEs, which in 25.6% of cases were G3–4 toxicities. No relationship was found between G3–4 AEs and age (p = 0.596), G8score < 14 (p = 0.804), and smoking (p = 0.245)/drinking habits (p = 0.341). Median OS was 58 months, with a slightly non-significant positive trend in OS for patients who were non-smokers and those who did not develop G3–4 AEs (p = 0.786 and 0.799, respectively). Association between folliculitis and OS was statistically significant (p = 0.001). Conclusions: In elderly patients, Cet-RT represents a feasible, well-tolerated option, although further prospective studies are needed.

Background: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) represents one of the most common and debilitating effects in patients surviving after cancer treatments. Neurocognitive deficits are important causes of disability and burden in cancer survivors. The true magnitude of CRCI is difficult to define due to significant heterogeneity of literature data. At present, there is no agreement on the gold standard for detection and grading of CRCI in clinical trials, and there is a lack of clear knowledge of its pathophysiology. Objectives: In this review, we aim to discuss some perspectives for future research to pursue in order to cover the gaps in knowledge in the CRCI field. Methods: We focused our literature research on the following relevant issues: neuroradiological correlates of CRCI; objective neuropsychological evaluation and subjective complaint assessment and their correlation with objective measures; timing of assessment; and possible treatments. Results: The correct methodology for evaluating cognitive deficits induced by anti-tumor treatments still requires a definition based on quality scientific evidence, and literature data are currently scarce. Conclusions: This review highlights the need for further research to understand the causes and consequences of cancer-related cognitive impairment using standardized and sensitive measures of cognitive functions and the long-term effects of chemotherapy on cognitive functions and to develop effective interventions.

Are the Number of Operations Appropriate to Define a High-Quality Breast Cancer Center?

Background. The words “hope” and “cure” were used in a greater number of articles and sentences in narrative and editorial papers than in primary research. Despite concomitant improvements in cancer outcomes, the related reluctance to use these terms in more scientifically oriented original reports may reflect a bias worthy of future exploration. This study aims to survey a group of physicians and cancer patients regarding their perception and use of the word cure. Materials and Method. An anonymous online and print survey was conducted to explore Italian clinicians’ (the sample includes medical oncologists, radiotherapists, and oncological surgeons) and cancer patients’ approach to the perception and use of the word “cure” in cancer care. The participants received an email informing them of the study’s purpose and were invited to participate in the survey via a linked form. A portion, two-thirds, of questionnaires were also administered to patients in the traditional paper form. Results. The survey was completed by 224 clinicians (54 oncologists, 78 radiotherapists, and 92 cancer surgeons) and 249 patients. The results indicate a favourable attitude for patients in favour of a new language (“cured” vs. “complete remission”) of the disease experience. Conclusions. The use of the word cured is substantially accepted and equally shared by doctors and patients. Its use can facilitate the elimination of metaphoric implications and toxic cancer-related connotations registered in all cultures that discourage patients from viewing cancer as a disease with varied outcomes, including cure.

A multidisciplinary panel of experts and cancer patients developed a position paper to highlight recent evidence on “cancer cure” (ie, the possibility of achieving the same life expectancy as the general population) and discuss the consequences of this concept on follow-up and rehabilitation strategies. The aim is to inform clinicians, patients, and health-care policy makers about strategies of survivorship care for cured cancer patients and consequences impacting patient lives, spurring public health authorities and research organizations to implement resources to the purpose. Two identifiable, measurable, and reproducible indicators of cancer cure are presented. Cure fraction (CF) is > 60% for breast and prostate cancer patients, > 50% for colorectal cancer patients, and > 70% for patients with melanoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, and cancers of corpus uteri, testis (> 90%), and thyroid. CF was > 65% for patients diagnosed at ages 15– 44 years and 30% for those aged 65– 74 years. Time-to-cure was consistently < 1 year for thyroid and testicular cancer patients and < 10 years for patients with colorectal and cervical cancers, melanoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. The working group agrees that the evidence allows risk stratification of cancer patients and implementation of personalized care models for timely diagnosis, as well as treatment of possible cancer relapses or related long-term complications, and preventive measures aimed at maintaining health status of cured patients. These aspects should be integrated to produce an appropriate follow-up program and survivorship care plan(s), avoiding stigma and supporting return to work, to a reproductive life, and full rehabilitation. The “right to be forgotten” law, adopted to date only in a few European countries, may contribute to these efforts for cured patients.