Search

Pioneer studies suggested that liver transplantation (LT) has the potential to provide long-term survival in patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) not amenable for surgery of metastases. Evidence, however, was limited to single-arm studies with few patients enrolled and suboptimal selection criteria, with concerns over access to organ availability overcoming the potential efficacy of LT in this setting. Recently, 5-year survival rates with chemotherapy followed by LT (73%) compared with chemotherapy alone (9%) have been demonstrated by the randomized TransMet trial, enrolling 94 definitively unresectable strictly selected liver-limited mCRC patients. These findings should now prompt clinical oncologists to reconsider LT as a valuable option for unresectable liver-limited mCRC patients meeting TransMet criteria, and transplantation agencies to adapt their policies of access to organ donation., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advances in surgical techniques and systemic treatments have increased the likelihood of achieving radical surgery and long-term survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). Nonetheless, roughly half of the patients resected after an upfront systemic therapy experience disease relapse within 6 months from surgery, thus leading to the question whether surgery is actually beneficial for these patients., Materials and Methods: A real-world dataset of mCRC patients with initially unresectable liver-limited disease treated with conversion chemotherapy followed by radical resection of CRLMs at three high-volume Italian institutions was retrospectively assessed with the aim of investigating the association of baseline and pre-surgical clinical, radiological and molecular factors with the risk of relapse within 6 or 12 months from surgery., Results: Overall, 268 patients were included in the analysis and 207 (77%) experienced recurrence. Ninety-six (46%) of them had disease relapse within 6 months after CRLM resection and in spite of several variables associated with early recurrence at univariate analyses, only primary tumour resection at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.89, P = 0.02] remained significant in the multivariable model. Among patients with resected primary tumours, pN+ stage was associated with higher risk of disease relapse within 6 months (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.23-7.41, P = 0.02). One hundred and forty-nine patients (72%) had disease relapse within 12 months after CRLMs resection but none of the analysed variables was independently associated with outcome., Conclusions: Clinical, radiological and molecular factors assessed before and after conversion chemotherapy do not reliably predict early recurrence after secondary resection of initially unresectable CRLMs. While novel markers are needed to optimize the cost/efficacy balance of surgical procedures, CRLM resection should be offered as soon as metastases become resectable during first-line chemotherapy to all patients eligible for surgery., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Targeted therapy (TT) with encorafenib and cetuximab is the current standard for patients with BRAF V600E -mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received one or more prior systemic treatments. However, the median progression-free survival (mPFS) is ∼4 months, and little is known about the possibility of administering subsequent therapies, their efficacy, and clinicopathological determinants of outcome., Methods: A real-world dataset including patients with BRAF V600E -mutated mCRC treated with TT at 21 Italian centers was retrospectively interrogated. We assessed treatments after progression, attrition rates, and outcomes., Results: Of the 179 patients included, 85 (47%), 32 (18%), and 7 (4%) received one, two, or three lines of treatment after TT, respectively. Those receiving TT in the second line were more likely to receive at least one subsequent therapy (53%), as compared with those treated with TT in the third line or beyond (30%; P < 0.0001), and achieved longer postprogression survival (PPS), also in a multivariate model (P = 0.0001). Among 62 patients with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stable (pMMR/MSS) tumors receiving one or more lines of treatment after second-line TT, combinatory chemotherapy ± anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) was associated with longer PFS and PPS as compared with trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib (mPFS: 2.6 versus 2.0 months, P = 0.07; PPS: 6.5 versus 4.4 months, P = 0.04)., Conclusions: Our real-world data suggest that TT should be initiated as soon as possible after the failure of first-line treatment in BRAF V600E -mutated mCRC. Among patients with pMMR/MSS tumors, combinatory chemotherapy ± anti-VEGF appears the preferred treatment choice after TT failure., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Baseline plasma androgen-receptor copy number (AR-CN) is a promising biomarker for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) outcome and treatment response; however, the role of its longitudinal testing is unproven. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of AR-CN assessed before subsequent treatment lines in mCRPC patients., Methods: A subgroup analysis of a prospective multicenter biomarker trial (IRSTB030) was carried out. Plasma AR-CN status (classified as normal or gain, cut-off value = 2) was assessed with digital PCR before each treatment line., Results: Forty mCRPC patients receiving sequentially docetaxel, cabazitaxel and an AR signaling inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) were analyzed. At multivariate analysis, at each assessment overall survival (OS) was independently correlated with AR-CN status [first line: hazard ratio (HR) 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-10.5]; second line: HR 2.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.3); third line: HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.0-4.3)] and median prostate-specific antigen [first line: HR 4.4 (95% CI 1.8-10.9); second line: HR 3.4 (95% CI 1.6-7.2); third line: HR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2-5.6)]. In the three subsequent assessments, AR-CN status changed from normal to gain in 15 (38%) patients. These patients had longer OS (47 months) compared with patients presenting AR-CN gain from first assessment (36 months), but shorter than those maintaining normal AR-CN (69 months) (P = 0.003)., Conclusions: Plasma AR-CN correlates with survival not only at baseline (before first treatment), but also in the assessments before the following lines. Interestingly, AR-CN status may change from normal to gain across subsequent treatments in a significant number of cases, identifying a group of patients with intermediate outcomes. Longitudinal assessment of AR-CN status could represent a promising method to capture mCRPC intrinsic heterogeneity and to improve clinical management., Competing Interests: Disclosure NB has received travel support from Ipsen, Novartis and Pfizer and speaker honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb. VC has received speaker honoraria or travel support from Astellas, Janssen-Cilag and Sanofi-Aventis, and has received consulting fee from Bayer. CL received honoraria for consulting (advisory board) from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen-Cilag. UDG received honoraria for advisory boards or invited speaker fees from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, PharmaMar, Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, Clovis, AstraZeneca, institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The treatment of patients with brain-spread renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an unmet clinical need, although more recent therapeutic strategies have significantly improved RCC patients' life expectancy. Our multicenter, retrospective, observational study investigated a real-world cohort of patients with brain metastases (BM) from RCC (BMRCC)., Patients and Methods: A total of 226 patients with histological diagnosis of RCC and radiological evidence of BM from 22 Italian institutions were enrolled. Univariate and multivariate models were performed to investigate the impact of clinicopathological features and multimodal treatments on both overall survival (OS) from the BM diagnosis and intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS)., Results: The median OS from the BM diagnosis was 18.8 months (interquartile range: 6.2-43 months). Multivariate analysis confirmed the following as positive independent prognostic factors: a Karnofsky Performance Status >70% [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.92, P = 0.0026] and a single BM (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.86, P = 0. 0310); in contrast, the following were confirmed as worse prognosis factors: progressive extracranial disease (HR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.003-2.74, P = 0.00181) and only one line of systemic therapy after the BM occurrence (HR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.62-5.49, P = 0.029). Subgroup analyses showed no difference in iPFS according to the type of the first systemic treatment [immunotherapy (IT) or targeted therapy (TT)] carried out after the BM diagnosis (HR = 1.033, 95% CI 0.565-1.889, P = 0.16), and revealed that external radiation therapy (eRT) significantly prolonged iPFS when combined with IT (10.7 months, 95% CI 4.9-48 months, P = 0.0321) and not when combined with TT (9.01 months, 95% CI 2.7-21.2 months, P = 0.59)., Conclusions: Our results suggest a potential additive effect in terms of iPFS for eRT combined with IT and encourage a more intensive multimodal therapeutic strategy in a multidisciplinary context to improve the survival of BMRCC patients., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Information about the adherence to scientific societies guidelines in the 'real-world' therapeutic management of oncological patients are lacking. This multicenter, prospective survey was aimed to improve the knowledge relative to 2017-2018 recommendations of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)., Patients and Methods: Treatment-naive adult patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Group A received adjuvant therapy, group B received primary chemotherapy, and group C had metastatic disease. The results on patients accrued until 31 October 2019 with a mature follow-up were presented., Results: Since July 2017, 833 eligible patients of 923 (90%) were enrolled in 44 Italian centers. The median age was 69 years (range 36-89 years; 24% >75 years); 48% were female; 93% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 0 or 1; group A: 16%, group B: 30%; group C: 54%; 72% Nord, 13% Center, 15% South. In group A, guidelines adherence was 68% [95% confidence interval (CI) 59% to 76%]; 53% of patients received gemcitabine and 15% gemcitabine + capecitabine; median CA19.9 was 29 (range 0-7300; not reported 15%); median survival was 36.4 months (95% CI 27.5-47.3 months). In group B, guidelines adherence was 96% (95% CI 92% to 98%); 55% of patients received nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, 27% FOLFIRINOX, 12% gemcitabine, and 3% clinical trial; median CA19.9 was 337 (range 0-20220; not reported 9%); median survival was 18.1 months (95% CI 15.6-19.9 months). In group C, guidelines adherence was 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%); 71% of patients received nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, 16% gemcitabine, 8% FOLFIRINOX, and 4% clinical trial; liver and lung metastases were reported in 76% and 23% of patients, respectively; median CA19.9 value was 760 (range 0-1374500; not reported 9%); median survival was 10.0 months (95% CI 9.1-11.1 months)., Conclusions: The GARIBALDI survey shows a very high rate of adherence to guidelines and survival outcome in line with the literature. CA19.9 testing should be enhanced; nutritional and psychological counseling represent an unmet need. Enrollment to assess adherence to updated AIOM guidelines is ongoing., Competing Interests: Disclosure RM declares grants or contracts from AstraZeneca and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly, PANAVANCE, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Viatris, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier, SOTIO, and Baxter. BF declares payment for consulting fees from Servier and AAA Novartis and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eli Lilly, MSD, EISAI, and Bayer. MM declares grants or contracts from Roche and Novartis, payment for consulting fees from Viatris, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Merck; payment for participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Novartis. CL declares payment for consulting fees from Astrazeneca e Merck and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Ipsen and Celgene. DMMC declares payment for participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from OncoSil and Olaparib and for Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from Editorial Board Future Oncology. SM declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Eli Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Italfarmaco, and BMS and for participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Janssen, and BMS; payment or has a leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from AIOM Sicilia. GE declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Viatris, Amgen, and AstraZeneca and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Ipsen and Viatris. SC declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Merk, Servier, Bayer, and Sanofi and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Merk, and Servier. GGC declares payment for attending meetings and/or travel from Incyte, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and MSD and for the participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Eli Lilly, MSD, and AstraZeneca. ME declares payment for consulting fees from MSD. GM declares consulting fees from Italfarmaco, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Merck, Eli Lilly, Servier, and Amgen. PL declares consulting fees from Ipsen and Italfarmaco. CP declares institutional grants from Ely Lilly, Bayer, and Roche; consulting fees from BMS, Ely Lilly, Novartis, and Merck and for the participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for BMS, Amgen, and Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evaluation of health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) among cancer patients has gained an increasing importance and is now a key determinant of anticancer treatments' value. HR-QoL has been assessed in trials testing cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in breast cancer (BC), using various questionnaires at different timepoints. HR-QoL reports from BC patients treated with CDK4/6i in the real-world setting are also available., Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature, searching for full-length articles, and selected conference abstracts reporting data on HR-QoL in BC patients at any stage and of any molecular subtype treated with abemaciclib, palbociclib or ribociclib., Results: A total of 533 full-length articles and 143 abstracts were retrieved. After screening for eligibility, 38 records were included (31 clinical trials; 7 real-world reports). Assessment methods were heterogeneous across studies in terms of questionnaires, evaluation timepoints and endpoints. Overall, adding CDK4/6i to endocrine therapy did not worsen patients' HR-QoL, with a positive trend towards pain improvement. Gastrointestinal scores (diarrhea, nausea and appetite loss) statistically favored the control arm among metastatic BC patients receiving abemaciclib, whereas they were superimposable in the early setting. The combination of palbociclib and endocrine therapy showed similar HR-QoL outcomes compared with endocrine therapy alone, but determined better scores compared with chemotherapy. HR-QoL was specifically assessed in premenopausal patients treated with ribociclib, showing similar scores compared with postmenopausal patients., Conclusions: Despite methodological heterogeneity does not allow a proper comparison, HR-QoL was generally maintained with CDK4/6i. However, differences between abemaciclib, palbociclib and ribociclib exist and mainly rely on the distinct safety profiles of the compounds. These differences should be acknowledged and taken into account in the clinical practice., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A growing body of evidence suggests that non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might benefit less from immunotherapy., Materials and Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with non-viral advanced HCC, treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, or sorafenib, in 36 centers in 4 countries (Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and UK). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, and OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib. For the primary and secondary endpoints, we carried out the analysis on the whole population first, and then we divided the cohort into two groups: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) population and non-NAFLD/NASH population., Results: One hundred and ninety patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 569 patients received lenvatinib, and 210 patients received sorafenib. In the whole population, multivariate analysis showed that treatment with lenvatinib was associated with a longer OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95; P = 0.0268] and PFS (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; P = 0.002) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the NAFLD/NASH population, multivariate analysis confirmed that lenvatinib treatment was associated with a longer OS (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.84; P = 0.0110) and PFS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.82; P = 0.031) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the subgroup of non-NAFLD/NASH patients, no difference in OS or PFS was observed between patients treated with lenvatinib and those treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. All these results were confirmed following propensity score matching analysis. By comparing patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib, no statistically significant difference in survival was observed., Conclusions: The present analysis conducted on a large number of advanced non-viral HCC patients showed for the first time that treatment with lenvatinib is associated with a significant survival benefit compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in particular in patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC., Competing Interests: Disclosure LR has received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. ACG has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai, Bayer, and is an advisor for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and GSK. MK has received grants from Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Takeda, Sumitomo Dainippon-Sumitomo, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai, and Bayer; and is an adviser for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and ONO Pharmaceutical. FPi has received consulting or lecture fees from in the last 2 years from Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bracco, EISAI, ESAOTE, Exact Sciences, IPSEN, MSD, Roche, Samsung, and Tiziana Life Sciences. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Meet-URO score allowed a more accurate prognostication than the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) for patients with pre-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by adding the pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and presence of bone metastases., Materials and Methods: A post hoc analysis was carried out to validate the Meet-URO score on the overall survival (OS) of patients with IMDC intermediate-poor-risk mRCC treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab within the prospective Italian Expanded Access Programme (EAP). We additionally considered progression-free survival (PFS) and disease response rates. Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of survival prediction., Results: Overall the EAP included 306 patients, with a median follow-up of 12.2 months, median OS was not reached, 1-year OS was 66.8% and median PFS was 7.9 months. By univariable analysis, both the IMDC score and the two additional variables of the Meet-URO score were associated with either OS or PFS (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The four Meet-URO risk groups (G) had 1-year OS of 92%, 72%, 50% and 21% for G2 (29.1% of patients), G3 (28.8%), G4 (33.0%) and G5 (9.1%), respectively. OS was significantly shorter in each consecutive G (P = 0.001 for G3, P < 0.001 for both G4 and G5 compared to G2). Similarly, Meet-URO Gs 2-5 showed decreasing median PFS and response rates. The Meet-URO score showed the highest c-index for both OS (0.73) and PFS (0.67). Limitations include the post hoc nature of this analysis and the lack of a comparative arm to assess predictive value., Conclusion: The Meet-URO score appeared to show better prognostic classification than the IMDC alone in patients with mRCC at IMDC intermediate-poor risk treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab., Competing Interests: Disclosure SER received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and travel accommodation from Amgen, GSK, BMS, MSD. SB received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis. GLB reported personal fees from Astellas and AstraZeneca. MM reports personal fees from BMS, Pfizer, Merck Serono, Astellas, Janssen, MSD. UDG served as an advisory/board member of Astellas, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, received research grant/funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi and travel/accommodations/expenses from BMS, IPSEN, Janssen, Pfizer. GP served as a consultant and/or a speaker for Bayer, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen, Ipsen, Boehringer. FC has received consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology and Pfizer. GC works as responsible for research and development at Kerubin Digital Therapeutic. CP served as a consultant and/or a speaker for Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, EUSA and General Electrics, as an expert testimony for both Pfizer and EUSA and is a protocol steering committee member for BMS, EUSA and Eisai. PR served as an advisory board for MSD and Astra Zeneca Italy. GF served as an advisory board member for Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, Merck and received travel accommodation from Astellas, Janssen, Bayer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib showed increased objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated (mut) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although no formal comparison was planned, addition of binimetinib to encorafenib plus cetuximab did not provide significant efficacy advantage., Patients and Methods: This real-life study was aimed at evaluating safety, activity, and efficacy of encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mut mCRC treated at 21 Italian centers within a nominal use program launched in May 2019., Results: Out of 133 patients included, 97 (73%) received encorafenib plus cetuximab (targeted doublet) and 36 (27%) the same therapy plus binimetinib (targeted triplet). Most patients had Eastern Cooperative Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of 0 or 1 (86%), right-sided primary tumor (69%), and synchronous disease (66%). Twenty (15%) tumors were DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI)-high. As many as 44 (34%) patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, 122 (92%) were previously exposed to oxaliplatin, and 109 (82%) to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF). Most frequent adverse events were asthenia (62%) and anti-EGFR-related skin rash (52%). Any grade nausea (P = 0.03), vomiting (P = 0.04), and diarrhea (P = 0.07) were more frequent with the triplet therapy, while melanocytic nevi were less common (P = 0.06). Overall, ORR and disease control rate (DCR) were 23% and 69%, respectively, with numerically higher rates in the triplet group (ORR 31% versus 17%, P = 0.12; DCR 78% versus 65%, P = 0.23). Median PFS and OS were 4.5 and 7.2 months, respectively. Worse ECOG-PS, peritoneal metastases, and more than one prior treatment were independent poor prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Clonality of BRAF mutation measured as adjusted mutant allele fraction in tumor tissue was not associated with clinical outcome., Conclusions: Our real-life data are consistent with those from the BEACON trial in terms of safety, activity, and efficacy. Patients in good general condition and not heavily pretreated are those more likely to derive benefit from the targeted treatment., Competing Interests: Disclosure MS reports being on the advisory board and speakers’ bureau for MERCK, MSD, Sanofi, Amgen, BMS, EISAI, and Servier. SL reports being on the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Merck, Roche, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre, GSK, and Servier; playing a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, MSD, Merck Serono, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Incyte, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Servier; research funding to institution from Bayer, Merck, Amgen, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CC reports honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Roche, and Servier; performing a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Bayer, MSD, and Roche; being on the speakers’ bureau for Servier; receiving/received research funding from Bayer, Merck, and Servier; travel, accommodations, and expenses from Roche and Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification, acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) histotype ALM is not included as an independent prognostic factor; in small series its negative prognostic impact on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) has been linked to the greater Breslow thickness (BT)., Patients and Methods: The study was carried out at four referral melanoma centers (three Italian and one Polish). Clinical consecutive patients with stage I-II melanoma, who were diagnosed, treated, and followed up between January 1998 and March 2018 in annotated specific databases were included., Results: Overall, 6734 were evaluable, 4349 with superficial spreading melanoma (SSM), 2132 with nodular melanoma (NM), and 253 with ALM. At univariable analysis, a statistically significant worse DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 2.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24-3.30; P < 0.001] and OS (HR 2.67, 95% CI 2.15-3.32; P < 0.001) were found in patients with ALM compared with SSM. Similarly, the NM histotype was associated with a worse prognosis compared with the SSM histotype (DFS: HR 2.29, 95% CI 2.08-2.52; P < 0.001 and OS: HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.99-2.46; P < 0.001). At multivariable analysis, after adjusting for age, sex, BT, ulceration, and the sentinel lymph node status, a statistically significant worse DFS [adjusted HR (aHR; ALM versus SSM) 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.52; P = 0.028] was confirmed for patients with ALM. For patients with NM, instead, no impact of histology was found in terms of DFS [aHR (NM versus SSM) 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.15; P = 0.513] and OS [aHR (NM versus SSM) 0.96, 95% CI 0.86-1.08; P = 0.548]., Conclusions: ALM is associated with a worse long-term DFS. Our results could have important clinical implications for patients' stratification in future clinical trials and the incorporation of ALM histotype in the new AJCC classification as an independent prognostic factor., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based regimens in non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been deeply investigated. To rank the available therapeutic options, we carried out a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis., Methods: A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICI regimens, and a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) with an all-comers and a stratified strategy were conducted. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs)., Results: Nineteen RCTs involving 17 treatment regimens were included. For the all-comers population, pembrolizumab/chemotherapy (CT) and cemiplimab were most likely the best treatments. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% nivolumab/ipilimumab with/without CT, for PD-L1 >1% and 1%-49% pembrolizumab/CT and for PD-L1 >50% cemiplimab ranked first for OS. In non-squamous (NSQ), pembrolizumab with/without CT ranked first for OS; cemiplimab ranked worse than the unselected population. In squamous (SQ), pooled hazard ratio (HR) showed a better chance in improving efficacy for combination strategy, while monotherapy did not, except for cemiplimab that ranked second. Atezolizumab/CT/bevacizumab ranked first in most subgroups for PFS. Direct comparison showed a non-statistically significant benefit of ICI regimens for the liver metastases cohort in OS, with a good ranking for pembrolizumab/CT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab/CT. Regarding brain metastases, all ICI regimens demonstrated an improvement in OS and PFS compared to CT. Nivolumab/ipilimumab/CT ranked better in this subset., Conclusions: Our meta-analysis updated on the most recent findings demonstrates that different ICI treatments rank differently in specific NSCLC settings (histology, biomarker and clinical presentation) offering a novel challenging scenario for clinical decision making and research planning., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drug-induced interstitial lung disease (DIILD) is a form of interstitial lung disease resulting from exposure to drugs causing inflammation and possibly interstitial fibrosis. Antineoplastic drugs are the primary cause of DIILD, accounting for 23%-51% of cases, with bleomycin, everolimus, erlotinib, trastuzumab-deruxtecan and immune checkpoint inhibitors being the most common causative agents. DIILD can be difficult to identify and manage, and there are currently no specific guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of DIILD caused by anticancer drugs., Objective: To develop recommendations for the diagnosis and management of DIILD in cancer patients., Methods: Based on the published literature and their clinical expertise, a multidisciplinary group of experts in Italy developed recommendations stratified by DIILD severity, based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events., Results: The recommendations highlight the importance of multidisciplinary interaction in the diagnosis and management of DIILD. Important components of the diagnostic process are physical examination and careful patient history-taking, measurement of vital signs (particularly respiratory rate and arterial oxygen saturation), relevant laboratory tests, respiratory function testing with spirometry and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and computed tomography/imaging. Because the clinical and radiological signs of DIILD are often similar to those of pneumonias or interstitial lung diseases, differential diagnosis is important, including microbial and serological testing to exclude or confirm infectious causes. In most cases, management of DIILD requires the discontinuation of the antineoplastic agent and the administration of short-term steroids. Steroid tapering must be undertaken slowly to prevent reactivation of DIILD. Patients with severe and very severe (grade 3 and 4) DIILD will require hospitalisation and often need oxygen and non-invasive ventilation. Decisions about invasive ventilation should take into account the patient's cancer prognosis., Conclusions: These recommendations provide a structured step-by-step diagnostic and therapeutic approach for each grade of suspected cancer-related DIILD., Competing Interests: Disclosure PC has received honoraria for consultation from Daiichi Sankyo. PAA has received grants and honoraria for consultation from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, iTeos Therapeutics, Lunaphore Technologies, Merck Serono, MSD, Nektar Therapeutics, Nouscom, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre Pharma, 4SC, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche-Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seagen and Sun Pharma. RD has received grants and honoraria for consultation from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Pfizer. PT has received grants and honoraria for consultation from Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte, MedicAir and Vertex. AC has received honoraria for consultation from Angelini, Gilead Sciences and Janssen. MDL has received honoraria for consultation from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre Pharma, Roche-Genentech and Seagen. AF has received grants and honoraria for consultation from Amgen, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre Pharma, Roche-Genentech and Servier. LR has received grants and honoraria for consultation from Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Cipla, CSL Behring, FibroGen, Nitto BioPharma, Pliant Therapeutics, Promedior, Respivant Sciences, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi Aventis and Zambon. SS has received grants and honoraria for consultation from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, CheckMab, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Serono and Seagen. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: TRIBE and TRIBE-2 studies demonstrated higher benefit from FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan)/bevacizumab compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) or FOLFOX/bevacizumab as an upfront option for metastatic colorectal cancer patients, with more toxicities. We focused on the incidence and longitudinal dynamics of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) in the two studies, to evaluate their clinical relevance, the magnitude of impact of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab, and the role of risk factors in predicting their occurrence., Methods: The overall incidence of grade 3-4 (G3-4) neutropenia and FN, the time to their onset, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and the association with risk factors were evaluated in the overall population and according to treatment arm. FN episodes were assessed by Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score., Results: Among 1155 patients, 568 (49%) received FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab. Overall, 410 (35%) experienced G3-4 neutropenia and 70 (6%) FN, 21 (2%) at high risk. FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab was associated with higher incidence of neutropenia (51% versus 21%, P < 0.001), FN (8% versus 4%, P = 0.02), and high-risk FN [18 (3%) versus 3 (1%), P = 0.015]. No related deaths were observed. The first episode of G3-4 neutropenia and FN occurred mainly in the first 2 months in both arms. Longitudinal analysis showed different patterns of evolution over cycles between the arms (P < 0.001) G3-4 neutropenia being more frequent in the first cycles with FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab. Older patients (P = 0.01) and females (P < 0.001) had a significantly higher risk of G3-4 neutropenia. No significant interaction effect between arm and analysed risk factors in terms of risk of G3-4 neutropenia or FN was observed. The incidence of FN among older females receiving FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab was 12%. Neither G3-4 neutropenia nor FN impaired efficacy in terms of overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival., Conclusions: FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab has a higher risk of G3-4 neutropenia and FN than doublets/bevacizumab. FN occurred in <10% of patients, mostly as low-risk episodes. A closer monitoring during the first 2 months is recommended; prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor may be considered for older females., Competing Interests: Disclosure DR honoraria from Takeda. AS honoraria for editorial projects from Novartis Pharma; honoraria for travel grants from Pfizer and PharmaMar. AZ speakers’ bureau from Amgen, Merck Serono, Servier, Bayer, Pierre-Fabre. SL honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, and Merck Serono; research funding from Amgen and Merck Serono; consulting or advisory role with Amgen, Merck Serono, Lilly, and Servier. FP honoraria from Amgen, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Servier, and Lilly; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb; consulting or advisory role with Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, and Servier. AF honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Merck Serono, Celgene, Bayer, and Sanofi; research funding from Roche, Amgen, and Merck Serono paid to their institution. AA Science advisory board for Kyowa Hakko Kyrin, Pfizer, Angelini; honoraria from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Otsuka, Novartis. CC honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Bayer, and Servier; research funding from Merck Serono; consulting or advisory role with Roche, Bayer, Amgen. All the other authors declared no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment remains a big challenge in the field of oncology. The liver disease (viral or not viral) underlying HCC turned out to be crucial in determining the biologic behavior of the tumor, including its response to treatment. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the role of the etiology of the underlying liver disease in survival outcomes., Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study on a large cohort of patients treated with lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC from both Eastern and Western institutions. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed., Results: Among the 1232 lenvatinib-treated HCC patients, 453 (36.8%) were hepatitis C virus positive, 268 hepatitis B virus positive (21.8%), 236 nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) correlate (19.2%) and 275 had other etiologies (22.3%). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-6.7 months] and the median overall survival (mOS) was 15.8 months (95% CI 14.9-17.2 months). In the univariate analysis for OS NASH-HCC was associated with longer mOS [22.2 versus 15.1 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85; P = 0.0006]. In the univariate analysis for PFS NASH-HCC was associated with longer mPFS (7.5 versus 6.5 months; HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71-0.99; P = 0.0436). The multivariate analysis confirmed NASH-HCC (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.86; P = 0.0028) as an independent prognostic factor for OS, along with albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, extrahepatic spread, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, portal vein thrombosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and alpha-fetoprotein. An interaction test was performed between sorafenib and lenvatinib cohorts and the results highlighted the positive predictive role of NASH in favor of the lenvatinib arm (P = 0.0047)., Conclusion: NASH has been identified as an independent prognostic factor in a large cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated with lenvatinib, thereby suggesting the role of the etiology in the selection of patients for tyrosine kinase treatment. If validated, this result could provide new insights useful to improve the management of these patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure AC-G has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai and Bayer; and is an adviser for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and GSK. MK has received grants from Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Takeda, Sumitomo Dainippon-Sumitomo, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, Astellas Pharma and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai and Bayer; and is an adviser for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and ONO Pharmaceutical. AJ reports personal fees from Eisai. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Data available on request from the authors., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Proton-pump-inhibitors (PPIs) are frequently prescribed for the management of anticancer drug-related gastrointestinal symptoms. Palbociclib is a weak base with pH-dependent solubility and potential drug-drug interaction at the absorption level may affect clinical pharmacokinetics. The current study was aimed at investigating the effect of co-administration of PPIs and palbociclib on progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients., Patients and Methods: Patients affected by estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative mBC, who were candidates for first-line treatment with palbociclib, were enrolled in this retrospective observational study. Patients were defined as 'no concomitant PPIs' if no PPIs were administered during palbociclib treatment, and as 'concomitant PPIs' if the administration of PPIs covered the entire or not less than two-thirds of treatment with palbociclib. All clinical interventions were made according to clinical practice., Results: A total of 112 patients were enrolled in the study; 56 belonged to the 'no concomitant PPIs' group and 56 to the 'concomitant PPIs' group. Seventy-one patients were endocrine-sensitive and received palbociclib and letrozole, and 43 were endocrine-resistant and were treated with palbociclib and fulvestrant. The most prescribed PPI was lansoprazole. Patients taking PPIs had a shorter PFS than those taking palbociclib and endocrine therapy alone (14.0 versus 37.9 months, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis confirmed concomitant PPIs as the only independent predictive factor for shorter PFS (P = 0.0002). PFS was significantly longer in estrogen-sensitive mBC with no concomitant PPIs compared with patients taking PPIs or estrogen-resistant patients, with and without PPIs (P < 0.0001). No correlation with adverse events was found when considering grade >2 hematological toxicities [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale]., Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that concomitant use of PPIs in mBC patients treated with palbociclib has a detrimental effect on PFS. Therefore, it is recommended to prescribe PPIs with caution in these patients, strictly adhering to the indications in the summary of product characteristics (RCP)., Competing Interests: Disclosure MDR received fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Bio-Rad, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Ipsen; CO declares fees from Novartis, Eisai, and Gentili; IM declares Advisory Board fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, outside the submitted work; RD reports receiving speaker bureau/advisor’s fee from Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Gilead, Lilly, Gilead, and EUSA Pharma. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Germline BRCA1-2 pathogenic variants (gBRCA1-2pv)-related pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) showed increased sensitivity to DNA cross-linking agents. This study aimed at exploring safety profile, dose intensity, and activity of different chemotherapy regimens in this setting., Patients and Methods: gBRCA1-2pv PDAC patients of any age and clinical tumor stage who completed a first course of chemotherapy were eligible. A descriptive analysis of chemotherapy toxicity, dose intensity, response, and survival outcomes was performed., Results: A total of 85 gBRCA1-2pv PDAC patients treated in 21 Italian centers between December 2008 and March 2021were enrolled. Seventy-four patients were assessable for toxicity and dose intensity, 83 for outcome. Dose intensity was as follows: nab-paclitaxel 72%, gemcitabine 76% (AG); cisplatin 75%, nab-paclitaxel 73%, capecitabine 73%, and gemcitabine 65% (PAXG); fluorouracil 35%, irinotecan 58%, and oxaliplatin 64% (FOLFIRINOX). When compared with the literature, grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea were increased with PAXG, and unmodified with AG and FOLFIRINOX. RECIST responses were numerically higher with the three- (81%) or four-drug (73%) platinum-containing regimens that outperformed AG (41%) and oxaliplatin-based doublets (56%). Carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (CA19.9) reduction >89% at nadir was reported in two-third of metastatic patients treated with triplets and quadruplets, as opposed to 33% and 45% of patients receiving oxaliplatin-based doublets or AG, respectively. All patients receiving AG experienced disease progression, with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 6.4 months, while patients treated with platinum-containing triplets or quadruplets had an mPFS >10.8 months. Albeit still immature, data on overall survival seemed to parallel those on PFS., Conclusions: Our data, as opposed to figures expected from the literature, highlighted that platinum-based regimens provoked an increased toxicity on proliferating cells, when dose intensity was maintained, or an as-expected toxicity, when dose intensity was reduced, while no change in toxicity and dose intensity was evident with AG. Furthermore, an apparently improved outcome of platinum-based triplets or quadruplets over other regimens was observed., Competing Interests: Disclosure MN reports travel expenses from Celgene; speaker honorarium from Accademia della Medicina; and consultant honoraria from EMD Serono. IG serves on the advisory board of Amgen, Takeda, and Eisai. GT reports travel expenses and personal honoraria for advisory boards from Celgene, Merck, AstraZeneca, Servier, and BMS. SC reports travel expenses and personal honoraria for the following companies: Amgen, Bayer, Eli Lilly, and Servier (as speaker); Amgen, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Baxter, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Servier (on advisory boards). Amgen, Baxter, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Novartis, and MSD (as consultant); receiving research grant from Celgene and Eisai. MM reports personal honoraria as speaker or consultant for the following companies: AstraZeneca, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, EUSA Pharma, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, Ipsen, and Mylan. MR reports travel expenses and personal honoraria for advisory boards from Celgene, Merck, AstraZeneca, Baxalta (2016), Baxter, Sanofi (2017), Servier, Shire, Eli Lilly, Pfizer (2016), Novocure (2016), and Novartis (2016); personal honoraria for steering committee work for AstraZeneca, and nonremunerated steering committee activities for Boston Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The safety and efficacy outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients fit enough to receive combination chemotherapy plus biological agents is an issue of growing interest. Also, gender-specific differential toxicity and efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based upfront treatments need to be explored., Patients and Methods: Valentino was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial, investigating two panitumumab-based maintenance strategies following first-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX in RAS wild-type mCRC patients. We carried out a subgroup analysis, aimed at assessing the differences in efficacy, safety and quality of life (QoL) according to age (<70 versus ≥70 years) and gender (male versus female). Efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR); safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs)., Results: No significant differences in terms of PFS, OS and ORR were observed between patients aged <70 or ≥70 years and the effect of the maintenance treatment arm on survival outcomes was similar in the two subgroups. The safety profile of both induction and maintenance treatment and the impact on QoL were similar in elderly and younger patients. No significant differences in PFS, OS, ORR or clinical benefit rate were observed according to gender. A significantly higher rate of overall grade 3/4 AEs (P = 0.008) and of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.017), any grade and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P < 0.0001) and any grade conjunctivitis (P = 0.033) was reported in female as compared to male patients. Conversely, we reported a significantly higher incidence of any grade skin rash (P = 0.0007) and hypomagnesemia (P = 0.029) in male patients., Conclusions: The upfront choice of an anti-EGFR-based doublet chemotherapy followed by a maintenance strategy represents a valuable option in RAS wild-type mCRC irrespective of gender and age, though a careful evaluation of patients to maximize the risk/benefit ratio is warranted., Competing Interests: Disclosure FP has received honoraria for speaker activities and participation in advisory boards from Sanofi, Amgen, Bayer, Merck-Serono, Lilly, Roche and Servier and research grants from BMS. SL has received honoraria for speaker activities and participation in advisory boards from Amgen, Bayer, Merck-Serono, Roche, Servier and Bristol-Myers Squibb. AZ has received honoraria for speaker bureau from Amgen, Merck, Servier and Bayer. SC has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Merck. MDB has received honoraria for speaker activities and participation in advisory boards from Amgen, Roche, Lilly, Servier, Incyte and Celgene. FM has received honoraria for speaker activities from Servier. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) is described as the presence of various clones within one tumor, each with their own unique features in terms of morphology, inflammation, genetics or transcriptomics. Heterogeneity provides the fuel for drug resistance; therefore, an accurate assessment of tumor heterogeneity is essential for the development of effective therapies. The purpose of this study was to dissect morphologic and molecular ITH in colorectal adenocarcinoma., Materials and Methods: A series of 120 V600E BRAF-mutated ( V600E BRAFmt) consecutive metastatic colorectal adenocarcinomas was assessed for morphologic heterogeneity. The two heterogeneous components of each specimen underwent a histopathological, immunohistochemical and molecular characterization to evaluate: histologic variant, grading, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), mismatch repair proteins' expression, KRAS/BRAF/NRAS mutations, microsatellite instability (MSI) status and consensus molecular subtype (CMS)., Results: Thirty-one out of 120 (25.8%) V600E BRAFmt primary colorectal adenocarcinomas presented a heterogeneous morphology. Among these, eight cases had adequate material for molecular profiling. Five out of the eight (62.5%) cases resulted instable at MSI testing. The majority (62.5%) of the samples showed a CMS4 phenotype based on gene expression profiling. Heterogeneity in CMS classification was observed in four out of eight cases. One out of eight cases presented significant heterogeneity in the number of TILs between the two components of the tumor., Conclusions: Although the distribution of the immune infiltrate appears relatively conserved among heterogeneous areas of the same tumor, changes in gene expression profile and CMS occur in 50% of V600E BRAFmt adenocarcinoma cases in our small series and might contribute to variability in response to anticancer therapy and clinical outcomes. Assessment of morphological and molecular ITH is needed to improve colorectal cancer classification and to tailor anticancer treatments and should be included in the pathology report., Competing Interests: Disclosure NV received honoraria from Merck Serono, Pfizer, Bayer, Eli-Lilly and Menarini Silicon Biosystems. FL had roles as consultant or advisor for Roche, Bayer, Amgen and Genentech. SL had roles as consultant or advisor for Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono and Lilly; she received research funding from Amgen and Merck Serono and is part of speakers' bureau of Lilly and BMS. VZ received honoraria and had roles as consultant or advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Astellas and Servier; he had roles as consultant or advisor for Celgene and Merck. MF received research funding from Astellas Pharma, Macrophage Pharma and QED Therapeutics and had roles as consultant or advisor for Astellas Pharma, Roche, GSK-Tesaro and Diaceutics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: After the advent of new treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the identification of prognostic factors is crucial for the selection of the most appropriate therapy for each patient., Patients and Methods: With the aim to fill this gap, we applied recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) to a cohort of 404 patients treated with lenvatinib., Results: The application of RPA resulted in a classification based on five variables that originated a new prognostic score, the lenvatinib prognostic index (LEP) index, identifying three groups: low risk [patients with prognostic nutritional index (PNI) >43.3 and previous trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE)]; medium risk [patients with PNI >43.3 but without previous TACE and patients with PNI <43.3, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1 and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (BCLC-B)]; high risk [patients with PNI <43.3 and ALBI grade 2 and patients with PNI <43.3, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1 and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (BCLC-C)]. Median overall survival was 29.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 22.8-29.8 months] in low risk patients (n = 128), 17.0 months (95% CI 15.0-24.0 months) in medium risk (n = 162) and 8.9 months (95% CI 8.0-10.7 months) in high risk (n = 114); low risk hazard ratio (HR) 1 (reference group), medium risk HR 1.95 (95% CI 1.38-2.74), high risk HR 4.84 (95% CI 3.16-7.43); P < 0.0001. The LEP index was validated in a cohort of 127 Italian patients treated with lenvatinib. While the same classification did not show a prognostic value in a cohort of 311 patients treated with sorafenib, we also show a possible predictive role in favor of lenvatinib in the low risk group., Conclusions: LEP index is a promising, easy-to-use tool that may be used to stratify patients undergoing systemic treatment of advanced HCC., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Data are available upon reasonable request., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) demonstrated prognostic value in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Similarly, a prognostic impact was suggested for the pre-consensus CRCAssigner (CRCA) classifier in early stages. The potential predictive role of these classifiers with regard to the choice of the first-line therapy has not been established. We investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of CMS and CRCA subtypes among mCRC patients treated in the TRIBE2 study., Methods: Among 679 randomized patients, 426 and 428 (63%) samples were profiled according to CMS and CRCA classifications, respectively. The prognostic and predictive impact of both CMS and CRCA subtypes was investigated with univariate and multivariate analyses for progression-free survival (PFS), PFS 2 (PFS2), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Significant associations of CMS and CRCA subtypes with PFS, PFS2, and OS were demonstrated; the CMS classifier confirmed its independent prognostic value in the multivariable model (P value for PFS/PFS2/OS = 0.01/0.07/0.08). The effect of treatment intensification was independent of CMS subtypes (P value for interaction for PFS/PFS2/OS = 0.88/0.75/0.55). A significant interaction effect between CRCA subtypes and treatment arm was demonstrated in PFS (P = 0.02), PFS2 (P = 0.01), and OS (P = 0.008). The benefit of FOLFOXIRI seemed more relevant in the stem-like (PFS, hazard ratio = 0.60; P = 0.03) and mixed subtypes (hazard ratio = 0.44; P = 0.002). These findings were confirmed in a subgroup of patients of the previous TRIBE study., Conclusions: We confirmed the independent prognostic role of CMS classification in mCRC independently of RAS/BRAF status. CRCA classification may help identifying subgroups of patients who may derive more benefit from FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab., Competing Interests: Disclosure AS received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA, and Pierre Fabre. Patents: (i) ‘Colorectal cancer classification with differential prognosis and personalized therapeutic responses’ (patent number PCT/IB2013/060416); (ii) ‘Prognostic and treatment response predictive method’ [European (EP) patent application number: 18792565.6], and (iii) ‘Patient classification and prognostic method’ (international patent application number: PCT/EP2019/053845). CC is a consultant/advisory board member for Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono, Servier. AF is a consultant/advisory board member for Bayer, Roche, Amgen, Eli-Lilly, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Servier. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: No tools to predict the probability of extrahepatic disease progression (ePD) of initially unresectable, liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are currently available. To estimate the likelihood to develop ePD and to identify clinical and molecular factors that could predict extrahepatic progression-free survival (ePFS), we conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentre cohort study., Methods: We retrospectively identified a cohort of 225 patients with initially unresectable liver-limited disease (LLD), treated from January 2004 to December 2017 with first-line doublets or triplet plus a biological agent at two Italian institutions., Results: 173 (77%) patients experienced ePD which occurred within 1, 2 or 3 years from the diagnosis of mCRC in 15%, 49% and 66% of patients, respectively. Globally, 164 (73%) patients underwent a liver resection at some point of their disease history, and 54 (33%) of them underwent a subsequent locoregional treatment. Age > 70 years, locoregional nodal involvement at diagnosis of colorectal cancer and ≥4 liver metastases were significantly associated with higher risk of ePD while liver resections were associated with reduced risk of ePD. In the multivariable model, number of liver metastases (subdistribution HR, SHR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.36; p = 0.01) and liver resections (SHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.63; p = 0.001) were still associated with ePD. Number of liver metastases < 4, no nodal involvement at diagnosis and liver resections were also associated with prolonged ePFS., Conclusions: The identified clinical factors could help physicians in personalising the intensity and aggressiveness of liver-directed treatments in patients with mCRC with initially unresectable LLD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objective: Primary tumour location is regarded as a reliable surrogate of colorectal cancer biology. Sensitivity to anti-EGFRs (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor) of metastatic transverse colon cancers (mTCCs) has usually been assumed similar to right-sided tumours; however, evidence about the clinical behaviour of mTCC is limited. Thus, to verify sensitivity of mTCC to anti-EGFRs we conducted the present study., Methods: Patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type microsatellite stable (MSS) mTCC receiving anti-EGFR monotherapy, or in combination with irinotecan if clearly irinotecan-refractory, were included. Hypothesising an overall response rate (ORR) of 35%, 11 patients, of whom at least 3 were responders, were necessary to be able to reject the null hypothesis of an ORR of 5%, with α and β errors of 0.05 and 0.20. PRESSING panel and consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) were assessed on tumour samples, whereas in-silico data were obtained from TCGA dataset., Results: Among nine eligible patients, four and three achieved response and disease stabilisation (ORR 44%). At a median follow-up of 23.1 months, median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.3 (95% CI 3.9 to NA) and 15.0 months (95% CI 10.0 to NA), respectively. A MET amplification and an ERBB4 S303F substitution were detected in patients with rapid disease progression, while others had PRESSING panel-negative tumours with CMS2 or CMS4 subtypes., Conclusions: RAS/BRAF wild-type MSS mTCCs may be sensitive to anti-EGFRs, as confirmed by molecular analyses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is considered a standard option in the upfront treatment of clinically selected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer irrespective of RAS and BRAF molecular status. The randomised MACBETH and VOLFI studies showed that a modified FOLFOXIRI regimen in combination with cetuximab or panitumumab, respectively, achieved high therapeutic activity in RAS and BRAF wild-type patients with an acceptable toxicity profile. Drawing from these considerations, we designed TRIPLETE study aiming at comparing two different chemotherapy backbones (mFOLFOXIRI or mFOLFOX6) in combination with panitumumab in the first-line treatment of patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer., Methods: This is a prospective, open-label, multicentre phase III trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients are randomised to receive a standard treatment with mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or an experimental regimen with modified FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 150 mg/m 2 , oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , L-leucovorin 200 mg/m 2 , 5-fluoruracil 2400 mg/m 2 48-hour continuous infusion) plus panitumumab up to 12 cycles, followed by panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil and L-leucovorin until disease progression. The primary endpoint is overall response rate according to RECIST 1.1 criteria., Discussion: The relative benefit of chemotherapy intensification when using an anti-EGFR-based regimen in molecularly selected patients is unknown; TRIPLETE study aims at filling this gap of knowledge. The study is sponsored by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest Cooperative Group and is currently ongoing at 42 Italian centres., Clinical Trial Information: NCT03231722., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy is a standard of care in the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and has demonstrated efficacy in later lines. Progressive disease (PD) occurs when tumours develop resistance to a therapy, although controversy remains about whether PD on a combination of chemotherapy and targeted agents implies resistance to both components. Here, we propose that some patients may gain additional clinical benefit from the reuse of cetuximab after having PD on regimens including cetuximab in an earlier treatment line. We conducted a non-systematic literature search in PubMed and reviewed published and ongoing clinical trials, focusing on later-line cetuximab reuse in patients with mCRC. Evidence from multiple studies suggests that cetuximab can be an efficacious and tolerable treatment when continued or when fit patients with mCRC are retreated with it after a break from anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, on the basis of available preclinical and clinical evidence, we propose that longitudinal monitoring of RAS status may identify patients suitable for such a strategy. Patients who experience progression on cetuximab plus chemotherapy but have maintained RAS wt tumour status may benefit from continuation of cetuximab with a chemotherapy backbone switch because they have probably developed resistance to the chemotherapeutic agents rather than the biologic component of the regimen. Conversely, patients whose disease progresses on cetuximab-based therapy due to drug-selected clonal expansion of RAS- mutant tumour cells may regain sensitivity to cetuximab following a defined break from anti-EGFR therapy. Looking to the future, we propose that RAS status determination at disease progression by liquid, needle or excisional biopsy may identify patients eligible for cetuximab continuation and rechallenge. With this approach, treatment benefit can be extended, adding to established continuum-of-care strategies in patients with mCRC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RMG has declared no conflicts of interest. DS discloses advisory board membership for and honoraria for talks from Amgen, Janssen, Merck KGaA, Sanofi, Roche and Servier. PR and FA are employees of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. ZAW discloses consultation for and honoraria from Lilly, Genentech and Novartis. JT discloses honoraria from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Celgene, Baxalta, Lilly, Servier and Sanofi. CM discloses advisory board membership for and honoraria for talks from Amgen, Merck KGaA, Roche, Sanofi, Servier and Symphogen. SaSi discloses advisory board membership for Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Ignyta, Bayer, Sanofi and Eli Lilly. SeSt discloses advisory role and honoraria for talks from Amgen, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda.

Background: BRAF V600E mutation defines a specific colorectal cancer (CRC) subgroup with poor prognosis. Promising preclinical data showed synthetically lethal activity of mitotic spindle poisons on BRAF- mutated and BRAF -like CRC models. We designed a phase II trial to test the activity of vinorelbine in patients with BRAF V600E mutated metastatic CRC (mCRC)., Patients and Methods: Patients progressed to or not deemed eligible for standard treatments received oral (60 mg/sqm) or intravenous (25 mg/sqm) vinorelbine, on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR)., Results: Twenty patients were enrolled; 75% of them were highly pretreated. No responses were observed (0%); only one patient had a confirmed disease stabilisation (5%). Median progression-free survival was 1 month (95% CI 0.8 to 1.8), median overall survival was 2.1 months (95% CI 1.6 to 3.7). No serious adverse events were observed., Conclusions: Despite encouraging preclinical data, our study did not show signs of clinical activity for vinorelbine in this patients' population. Further investigations on molecular heterogeneity and dynamic evolution of BRAF V600E mutated mCRC are needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.