Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?

Nearly five decades following its conception, the Gleason grading system remains a cornerstone in the prognostication and management of patients with prostate cancer. In the past few years, a debate has been growing whether Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer is a clinically significant disease. Clinical, molecular and genetic research is addressing the question whether well characterized Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease has the ability to affect the morbidity and quality of life of an individual in whom it is diagnosed. The consequences of treatment of Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease are considerable; few men get through their treatments without sustaining some harm. Further modification of the classification of prostate cancer and dropping the label cancer for Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 disease might be warranted

Excess cases of prostate cancer and estimated overdiagnosis associated with PSA testing in East Anglia

This study aimed to estimate the extent of 'overdiagnosis' of prostate cancer attributable to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the Cambridge area between 1996 and 2002. Overdiagnosis was defined conceptually as detection of prostate cancer through PSA testing that otherwise would not have been diagnosed within the patient's lifetime. Records of PSA tests in Addenbrookes Hospital were linked to prostate cancer registrations by NHS number. Differences in prostate cancer registration rates between those receiving and not receiving prediagnosis PSA tests were calculated. The proportion of men aged 40 years or over with a prediagnosis PSA test increased from 1.4 to 5.2% from 1996 to 2002. The rate of diagnosis of prostate cancer was 45% higher (rate ratios (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.02-2.07) in men with a history of prediagnosis PSA testing. Assuming average lead times of 5 to 10 years, 40-64% of the PSA-detected cases were estimated to be overdiagnosed. In East Anglia, from 1996 to 2000, a 1.6% excess of cases was associated with PSA testing (around a quarter of the 5.3% excess incidence cases observed in East Anglia from 1996 to 2000). Further quantification of the overdiagnosis will result from continued surveillance and from linkage of incidence to testing in other hospitals

Influence of operative time and blood loss on surgical margins and functional outcomes for laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis

Introduction: The aim of this article was to analyze whether operative time and blood loss during radical prostatectomy (RP) can significantly influence surgical margins (SM) status and post-operative functional outcomes. Material and methods: We prospectively analyzed prostate cancer (PC) patients undergoing RP, using robot-assisted (RARP) or laparoscopic (LRP) procedures. Blood loss was defined using the variation in hemoglobin (Hb, g/dl) values from the day before surgery and no later than 4 hours after surgery. Results: From a whole population of 413 cases considered for RP, 67% underwent LRP and 33.0% RARP. Positive SM (SM+) were found in 33.9% of cases. Mean surgical operative time was 172.3 ±76 min (range 49-485), whereas blood loss was 2.3 ±1.2 g/dl (range 0.3-7.6). Operative time and blood loss at RP were not significantly correlated (r = -0.028275; p = 0.684). SM+ rates significantly (p = 0.002) varied by operative time; a higher SM+ rate was found in cases with an operative time <120 min (41.2%) and >240 min (53.4%). The risk of SM+ significantly increased 1.70 and 1.94 times in cases with an operative time <120 min and >240 min, respectively, independently to the surgical approach. The rate of erectile disfunction (ED) varied from 22.4% to 60.3% between <120 min and >240 min procedures (p = 0.001). According to blood loss, SM+ rates slightly but significantly (p = 0.032) varied; a higher rate of SM+ was found in cases with a Hb variation between 2-4 g/dl (35.9%). Conclusions: Independently to the surgical approach, operative time, more than blood loss at RP, represents a significant variable able to influence SM status and post-operative ED

Sarilumab plus standard of care vs standard of care for the treatment of severe COVID-19: a phase 3, randomized, open-labeled, multi-center study (ESCAPE study)

Background Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19.Methods In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76).Findings Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81-94] in arm A vs 85% [74-93], HR 1.07 [0.8-1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% [77-96] vs 79% [63-91], HR 1.55 [0.9-2.6]; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% [79-96]) vs (73% [55-89], HR 1.53 [0.9-2.7]; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths.Interpretation The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results.Funding This study was supported by INMI "Lazzaro Spallanzani" Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and ree-merging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.Copyright (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Clinical and molecular characterization of COVID-19 hospitalized patients

Clinical and molecular characterization by Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) is reported in 35 COVID-19 patients attending the University Hospital in Siena, Italy, from April 7 to May 7, 2020. Eighty percent of patients required respiratory assistance, half of them being on mechanical ventilation. Fiftyone percent had hepatic involvement and hyposmia was ascertained in 3 patients. Searching for common genes by collapsing methods against 150 WES of controls of the Italian population failed to give straightforward statistically significant results with the exception of two genes. This result is not unexpected since we are facing the most challenging common disorder triggered by environmental factors with a strong underlying heritability (50%). The lesson learned from Autism-Spectrum-Disorders prompted us to re-analyse the cohort treating each patient as an independent case, following a Mendelian-like model. We identified for each patient an average of 2.5 pathogenic mutations involved in virus infection susceptibility and pinpointing to one or more rare disorder(s). To our knowledge, this is the first report on WES and COVID-19. Our results suggest a combined model for COVID-19 susceptibility with a number of common susceptibility genes which represent the favorite background in which additional host private mutations may determine disease progression

Association of Toll-like receptor 7 variants with life-threatening COVID-19 disease in males: findings from a nested case-control study

Background: Recently, loss-of-function variants in TLR7 were identified in two families in which COVID-19 segregates like an X-linked recessive disorder environmentally conditioned by SARS-CoV-2. We investigated whether the two families represent the tip of the iceberg of a subset of COVID-19 male patients.Methods: This is a nested case-control study in which we compared male participants with extreme phenotype selected from the Italian GEN-COVID cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected participants (<60y, 79 severe cases versus 77 control cases). We applied the LASSO Logistic Regression analysis, considering only rare variants on young male subsets with extreme phenotype, picking up TLR7 as the most important susceptibility gene.Results: Overall, we found TLR7 deleterious variants in 2.1% of severely affected males and in none of the asymptomatic participants. The functional gene expression profile analysis demonstrated a reduction in TLR7-related gene expression in patients compared with controls demonstrating an impairment in type I and II IFN responses.Conclusion: Young males with TLR7 loss-of-function variants and severe COVID-19 represent a subset of male patients contributing to disease susceptibility in up to 2% of severe COVID-19

Host genetics and COVID-19 severity: increasing the accuracy of latest severity scores by Boolean quantum features

The impact of common and rare variants in COVID-19 host genetics has been widely studied. In particular, in Fallerini et al. (Human genetics, 2022, 141, 147–173), common and rare variants were used to define an interpretable machine learning model for predicting COVID-19 severity. First, variants were converted into sets of Boolean features, depending on the absence or the presence of variants in each gene. An ensemble of LASSO logistic regression models was used to identify the most informative Boolean features with respect to the genetic bases of severity. After that, the Boolean features, selected by these logistic models, were combined into an Integrated PolyGenic Score (IPGS), which offers a very simple description of the contribution of host genetics in COVID-19 severity. IPGS leads to an accuracy of 55%–60% on different cohorts, and, after a logistic regression with both IPGS and age as inputs, it leads to an accuracy of 75%. The goal of this paper is to improve the previous results, using not only the most informative Boolean features with respect to the genetic bases of severity but also the information on host organs involved in the disease. In this study, we generalize the IPGS adding a statistical weight for each organ, through the transformation of Boolean features into “Boolean quantum features,” inspired by quantum mechanics. The organ coefficients were set via the application of the genetic algorithm PyGAD, and, after that, we defined two new integrated polygenic scores ((Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.)). By applying a logistic regression with both IPGS, ((Formula presented.) (or indifferently (Formula presented.)) and age as inputs, we reached an accuracy of 84%–86%, thus improving the results previously shown in Fallerini et al. (Human genetics, 2022, 141, 147–173) by a factor of 10%

An explainable model of host genetic interactions linked to COVID-19 severity

We employed a multifaceted computational strategy to identify the genetic factors contributing to increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection from a Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) dataset of a cohort of 2000 Italian patients. We coupled a stratified k-fold screening, to rank variants more associated with severity, with the training of multiple supervised classifiers, to predict severity based on screened features. Feature importance analysis from tree-based models allowed us to identify 16 variants with the highest support which, together with age and gender covariates, were found to be most predictive of COVID-19 severity. When tested on a follow-up cohort, our ensemble of models predicted severity with high accuracy (ACC = 81.88%; AUCROC = 96%; MCC = 61.55%). Our model recapitulated a vast literature of emerging molecular mechanisms and genetic factors linked to COVID-19 response and extends previous landmark Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). It revealed a network of interplaying genetic signatures converging on established immune system and inflammatory processes linked to viral infection response. It also identified additional processes cross-talking with immune pathways, such as GPCR signaling, which might offer additional opportunities for therapeutic intervention and patient stratification. Publicly available PheWAS datasets revealed that several variants were significantly associated with phenotypic traits such as “Respiratory or thoracic disease”, supporting their link with COVID-19 severity outcome