Search

In the last two-decades, innovative drugs have revolutionized cancer treatments, demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival. These drugs may present several pharmacokinetics interactions with non-oncological drugs, and vice versa, and, non-oncological drugs can modify oncological treatment outcome both with pharmacokinetic interaction and with an "off-target impact" on the tumor microenvironment or on the peripheral immune response. It's supposed that the presence of a drug-drug interaction (DDI) is associated with an increased risk of reduced anti-tumor effects or severe toxicities. However, clinical evidence that correlate the DDI presence with outcome are few, and results are difficult to compare because of difference in data collection and heterogeneous population. This review reports all the clinical evidence about DDI to provide an easy-to-use guide for DDI management and dose adjustment in solid tumors treated with inhibitors of the cyclin-dependent kinases CDK4-6, Antibody-drug conjugates, Poly ADPribose polymerase inhibitors, androgen-receptor targeted agents, or immunecheckpoints inhibitors., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All the authors declare no conflicts of interest for this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Abemaciclib demonstrated clinical benefit in women affected by HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (aBC). Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can lead to reduced treatment efficacy or increased toxicity. This retro-prospective study aimed to evaluate outcomes, DDIs' impact, and toxicities of abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy in a real-world setting. Patients from 12 referral Italian hospitals with HR+/HER2- aBC who received abemaciclib were included. Clinical data about comorbidities, concurrent medications, outcomes, and adverse events (AE) were collected. Drug-PIN® (Personalized Interactions Network) is a tool recognizing the role of multiple interactions between active and/or pro-drug forms combined with biochemical and demographic patient data. The software was used to define the Drug-PIN score and Drug-PIN tier (green, yellow, dark yellow, and red) for each patient. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of patients' PFS or toxicity. One hundred seventy-three patients were included. 13% of patients had >75years. The overall response rate (ORR) was 63%. The general population's median PFS (mPFS) was 22 months (mo), while mOS were not reached. Patients treated with abemaciclib in combination with AI and fulvestrant had a mPFS of 36 and 19 mo, respectively. The most common toxicities were diarrhea, asthenia, and neutropenia detected in 63%,49%, and 49% of patients. The number of concomitant medications and comorbidities were not associated with survival outcomes (22 vs 17 mo, p = 0.068, p = 0.99). Drug-PIN tier from dark yellow to red and Drug-PIN score >12 were associated with shorter PFS compared to no/low-risk DDIs and score <12 (15 vs 23, p = 0.005, p = 0.0017). Drug interaction was confirmed as an independent biomarker in a multivariate model (p = 0.02). No difference in any grade AE, severe toxicities, and diarrhea were detected among different age subgroups. No association was found between Drug-PIN score or Drug-PIN tier and overall toxicity (p = 0.44), severe AEs (p = 0.11), or drug reduction (p = 0.27). The efficacy and safety of abemaciclib plus ET were confirmed in a real-world setting, even in the elderly population and patients with comorbidities. Evaluation of DDIs with Drug-PIN appears to be an independent predictor of PFS., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The therapeutic landscape for early breast cancer (eBC) has expanded by introducing novel anticancer agents into clinical practice. During their reproductive years, women with eBC should be informed of the potential risk of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and infertility with the proposed systemic therapy. Although the topic of female fertility is becoming increasingly relevant in patients with cancer, limited information is available on the gonadotoxicity of new agents available for eBC treatment. Analyses from clinical trials and prospective data on ovarian function biomarkers are lacking. The purpose of this systematic review is to report the available preclinical and clinical data on female fertility risk with the use of the new agents that are part of clinical practice use or under development for eBC management. This review highlights the clear need to perform additional research efforts to improve our understanding on the gonoadtoxicity of new anticancer agents., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Matteo Lambertini reports advisory roles for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Exact Sciences; speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, and Gilead; travel Grants from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche; and research funding (to the Institution) from Gilead, all outside the submitted work. Andrea Botticelli has advisory and consulting roles for Roche, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Sofos, Daichii, and AstraZeneca. Simone Scagnoli reported speaker fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, BMS, and MSD. Advisory role for AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) demonstrated unprecedented efficacy in patients with pretreated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, few data are available about its efficacy in routine clinical practice. In this multicenter retrospective study, we examined effectiveness and safety of T-DXd in a real-world population., Methods: Clinico-pathological information about patients with HER2+ mBC who received T-DXd were collected from 12 Italian hospitals. HER2 status was determined locally. Patients who received at least one administration of T-DXd, as any therapy line for advanced disease were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was real-word PFS (rwPFS)., Results: One hundred and forty-three patients were included. Median age was 66 (range: 37-90), and 4 men were included. Hormone receptor (HR) status was positive in 108 (75%) patients and negative in 35(25%). T-DXd was administered as first, second, third, or subsequent lines in 4 (3%), 16 (11%), 42 (29%), and 81 (57%) patients, respectively. Among 123 patients with measurable disease, the ORR was 68%, and the DCR was 93% (9 CRs, 74 PRs, and 30 SD). Nine (7%) patients had a primary resistance to T-DXd. With a median follow-up of 12 months, the median rwPFS was 16 months. RwPFS was 84%, 59%, and 39% at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. A favorable trend in rwPFS was reported in patients receiving T-DXd as I/II line versus further lines (17 vs. 15 months; P = .098). Any-grade toxicity was registered in 84 patients (59%). Most common adverse events (AEs) reported were nausea (33%), neutropenia (21%), and asthenia (21%). Liver toxicity and diarrhea were uncommon (5% and 1%). Severe toxicities was registered in 18% of patients, and the most frequent were neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, and ILD observed in 15, 2, and 3 patients. AEs led to dose reduction in 37 patients (26%). Dose reduction and AEs do not affect patients' response and survival outcomes., Conclusions: Efficacy and safety of T-DXd were confirmed in an unselected real-world population of HER2+ mBC. These results are consistent with the results of known findings, and no new safety concerns were reported., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Metastatic breast cancer patients are the most prevalent oncology population with advanced disease facing COVID-19 pandemic. Immune responses after mRNA-based vaccination during treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors or HER2-directed agents remain unclear. We conducted a prospective analysis to elucidate changes in antibody titers and lymphocyte counts following full course of mRNA-BNT162b2 (tozinameran) vaccination in recipients undergoing these targeted therapies., Methods: Patients who had received a booster dosing and had been treated for at least 6 months were eligible. Antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were measured at four subsequent time points. Immunophenotyping of circulating lymphocytes was performed before the third dose of tozinameran and four weeks later to quantify the absolute counts of CD3 + CD4 + T-helper cells, CD3 + CD8 + T-cytotoxic cells, CD19 + B cells, and CD56 + CD16 + NK cells. We also assessed the incidence of breakthrough infections and investigated whether immune changes affect time-to-treatment failure (TTF) after booster vaccination., Results: The current analysis included 69 patients, of whom 38 (55%) and 31 (45%) were being treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors and HER2-targeted therapies, respectively. All participants received a third dose of tozinameran between September 23 and October 7, 2021. Multivariate analysis revealed that CDK4/6 inhibition predicted a significantly impaired humoral response after the booster dose. This detrimental effect was also evident for T-helper cell counts before the third immunization, but it disappeared in the subsequent evaluation. After a median follow-up of 22.3 months, we observed 19 (26%) cases of COVID-19 outbreaks, all experiencing favorable clinical outcomes. Univariate analysis showed a significant association between the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors, as well as with an impaired antibody and T-helper cell response. Only the last two covariates remained independent predictors after multivariate testing. Dynamic variations in antibody titers and T-helper cell counts did not affect TTF in multivariate regression analysis., Conclusions: Our results confirm that the immune response to tozinameran is impaired by CDK4/6 inhibitors, increasing the odds of breakthrough infections despite the third vaccine dose. Current evidence recommends maintaining efforts to provide booster immunizations to the most vulnerable cancer patients, including those with advanced breast cancer undergoing CDK4/6 inhibition., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2023 Nelli, Fabbri, Botticelli, Giannarelli, Marrucci, Fiore, Virtuoso, Berrios, Scagnoli, Pisegna, Cirillo, Panichi, Massari, Silvestri and Ruggeri.)

Background: BRAF and MEK inhibition is a successful strategy in managing BRAF-mutant melanoma, even if the treatment-related toxicity is substantial. We analyzed the role of drug-drug interactions (DDI) on the toxicity profile of anti-BRAF/anti-MEK therapy., Methods: In this multicenter, observational, and retrospective study, DDIs were assessed using Drug-PIN software (V 2/23). The association between the Drug-PIN continuous score or the Drug-PIN traffic light and the occurrence of treatment-related toxicities and oncological outcomes was evaluated., Results: In total, 177 patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma undergoing BRAF/MEK targeted therapy were included. All grade toxicity was registered in 79% of patients. Cardiovascular toxicities occurred in 31 patients (17.5%). Further, 94 (55.9%) patients had comorbidities requiring specific pharmacological treatments. The median Drug-PIN score significantly increased when the target combination was added to the patient's home therapy ( p -value < 0.0001). Cardiovascular toxicity was significantly associated with the Drug-PIN score ( p -value = 0.048). The Drug-PIN traffic light ( p = 0.00821) and the Drug-PIN score ( p = 0.0291) were seen to be significant predictors of cardiotoxicity. Patients with low-grade vs. high-grade interactions showed a better prognosis regarding overall survival (OS) ( p = 0.0045) and progression-free survival (PFS) ( p = 0.012). The survival analysis of the subgroup of patients with cardiological toxicity demonstrated that patients with low-grade vs. high-grade DDIs had better outcomes in terms of OS ( p = 0.0012) and a trend toward significance in PFS ( p = 0.068)., Conclusions: DDIs emerged as a critical issue for the risk of treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity. Our findings support the utility of DDI assessment in melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Tissue-based biopsy is the present main tool to explore the molecular landscape of cancer, but it also has many limits to be frequently executed, being too invasive with the risk of side effects. These limits and the ability of cancer to constantly evolve its genomic profile, have recently led to the need of a less invasive and more accurate alternative, such as liquid biopsy. By searching Circulating Tumor Cells and residues of their nucleic acids or other tumor products in body fluids, especially in blood, but also in urine, stools and saliva, liquid biopsy is becoming the future of clinical oncology. Despite the current lack of a standardization for its workflows, that makes it hard to be reproduced, liquid biopsy has already obtained promising results for cancer screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and risk of recurrence.Through a more accessible molecular profiling of tumors, it could become easier to identify biomarkers predictive of response to treatment, such as EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer and KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer, or Microsatellite Instability and Mismatch Repair as predictive markers of pembrolizumab response.By monitoring circulating tumor DNA in longitudinal repeated sampling of blood we could also predict Minimal Residual Disease and the risk of recurrence in already radically resected patients.In this review we will discuss about the current knowledge of limitations and strengths of the different forms of liquid biopsies for its inclusion in normal cancer management, with a brief nod to their newest biomarkers and its future implications., (© 2023. Italian National Cancer Institute ‘Regina Elena’.)

Background: Real-life spectrum and survival implications of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with extended interval dosing (ED) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are unknown., Methods: Characteristics of 812 consecutive solid cancer patients who received at least 1 cycle of ED monotherapy (pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W or nivolumab 480 mg Q4W) after switching from canonical interval dosing (CD; pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or nivolumab 240 mg Q2W) or treated upfront with ED were retrieved. The primary objective was to compare irAEs patterns within the same population (before and after switch to ED). irAEs spectrum in patients treated upfront with ED and association between irAEs and overall survival were also described., Results: A total of 550 (68%) patients started ICIs with CD and switched to ED. During CD, 225 (41%) patients developed any grade and 17 (3%) G3 or G4 irAEs; after switching to ED, any grade and G3 or G4 irAEs were experienced by 155 (36%) and 20 (5%) patients. Switching to ED was associated with a lower probability of any grade irAEs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.99; P = .047), whereas no difference for G3 or G4 events was noted (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.94; P = .18). Among patients who started upfront with ED (n = 232, 32%), 107 (41%) developed any grade and 14 (5%) G3 or G4 irAEs during ED. Patients with irAEs during ED had improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.82; P = .004 after switching; aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.93; P = .025 upfront)., Conclusions: Switching ICI treatment from CD and ED did not increase the incidence of irAEs and represents a safe option also outside clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have particular, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), as a consequence of interfering with self-tolerance mechanisms. The incidence of irAEs varies depending on ICI class, administered dose and treatment schedule. The aim of this study was to define a baseline (T0) immune profile (IP) predictive of irAE development., Methods: A prospective, multicenter study evaluating the immune profile (IP) of 79 patients with advanced cancer and treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) drugs as a first- or second-line setting was performed. The results were then correlated with irAEs onset. The IP was studied by means of multiplex assay, evaluating circulating concentration of 12 cytokines, 5 chemokines, 13 soluble immune checkpoints and 3 adhesion molecules. Indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase (IDO) activity was measured through a modified liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using the high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) method. A connectivity heatmap was obtained by calculating Spearman correlation coefficients. Two different networks of connectivity were constructed, based on the toxicity profile., Results: Toxicity was predominantly of low/moderate grade. High-grade irAEs were relatively rare, while cumulative toxicity was high (35%). Positive and statistically significant correlations between the cumulative toxicity and IP10 and IL8, sLAG3, sPD-L2, sHVEM, sCD137, sCD27 and sICAM-1 serum concentration were found. Moreover, patients who experienced irAEs had a markedly different connectivity pattern, characterized by disruption of most of the paired connections between cytokines, chemokines and connections of sCD137, sCD27 and sCD28, while sPDL-2 pair-wise connectivity values seemed to be intensified. Network connectivity analysis identified a total of 187 statistically significant interactions in patients without toxicity and a total of 126 statistically significant interactions in patients with toxicity. Ninety-eight interactions were common to both networks, while 29 were specifically observed in patients who experienced toxicity., Conclusions: A particular, common pattern of immune dysregulation was defined in patients developing irAEs. This immune serological profile, if confirmed in a larger patient population, could lead to the design of a personalized therapeutic strategy in order to prevent, monitor and treat irAEs at an early stage., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Clinical trials have shown a significant increase in pathologic complete response (pCR) with the addition of pertuzumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early-stage HER-2 positive breast cancer. To date, limited studies have examined comparative outcomes of neoadjuvant pertuzumab in real-world setting. The Neopearl study aimed to assess comparative real-life efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab for these patients., Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis involving 17 oncology facilities with a certified multidisciplinary breast cancer treatment committee. We identified patients with HER-2 positive stage II-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on trastuzumab and taxanes with or without pertuzumab. All patients underwent breast surgery and received a comprehensive cardiologic evaluation at baseline and after neoadjuvant treatment. Patients who received the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy constituted case cohort (PTCT), whereas those treated with trastuzumab and chemotherapy accounted for control cohort (TCT). The pCR rate and 5-year event free survival (EFS) were the primary outcomes. Secondary end-points were rates of conversion from planned modified radical mastectomy (MRM) to breast conservation surgery (BCS) and cardiotoxicities., Results: From March 2014 to April 2021, we included 271 patients, 134 (49%) and 137 (51%) in TCT and PTCT cohort, respectively. Positive axillary lymph nodes and stage III were more frequent in PTCT cohort. The pCR rate was significantly increased in patients who received pertuzumab (49% vs 62%; OR 1.74, 95%CI 1.04-2.89) and with HER-2 enriched subtypes (16% vs 85%; OR 2.94, 95%CI 1.60-5.41). After a median follow-up of 5 years, the 5-year EFS was significantly prolonged only in patients treated with pertuzumab (81% vs 93%; HR 2.22, 95%CI 1.03-4.79). The same analysis performed on propensity score matched population showed concordant results. On univariate analysis, only patients with positive lymph nodes were found to benefit from pertuzumab for both pCR and 5-year EFS. The rates of conversion from MRM to BCS and cardiologic toxicities did not differ between the cohorts., Conclusion: Our findings support previous data on improved outcomes with the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This benefit seems to be more significant in patients with clinically positive lymph nodes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Fabbri, Nelli, Botticelli, Giannarelli, Marrucci, Fiore, Virtuoso, Scagnoli, Pisegna, Alesini, Sini, Orlandi, Fabi, Piacentini, Moscetti, D’Auria, Gamucci, Mazzotta, Pizzuti, Vici, Cretella, Scavina, La Cesa, Persano, Atzori and Ruggeri.)

Background: In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized CREATE-X study, carried out in Asian patients and including a small subset of triple negative tumors. Thus far, evidence on Caucasian patients is limited, and no real-world data are available., Methods: We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years., Results: Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles., Conclusion: The CaRe study shows an unexpectedly good tolerance of adjuvant capecitabine in a real-world setting, although effectiveness appears to be lower than that observed in the CREATE-X study. Methodological differences between the two studies impose significant limits to comparability concerning effectiveness, and strongly invite further research., Competing Interests: LP received speaker fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. UDG: Pfizer, BMS, MSD, PharmaMAR, AStellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis; Invited speaker Roche, BMS, SAnofi, AstraZeneca; received research grants from AstraZeneca, SAnofi, Roche, outside the submitted work. AF received honoraria as a speaker from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GT: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. DS: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. NLV: Roche, MSD, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Dephaforum, outside the submitted work. OG: Eisai, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. IM: advisory boards from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gentili, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GD’A: Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. MPi Consultant/advisory boards from Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, MSD, outside the submitted work. RB received research grant/advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Eisai, outside the submitted work. FGi: advisory boards from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, outside the submitted work. MEC consultant/advisory role for Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, outside the submitted work. RT: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Exact Science, outside the submitted work. AB: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche outside the submitted work. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees/advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre-Fabre. LG received congress travel accomodation from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis; advisory role for Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. MMin: Novartis, MSD, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EC: Astellas, Roche, BMS, Jansen, MSD, Sirtex, Merck, Bayer, Servier, Novartis, outside the submitted work. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche, Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre and Incyte, outside the submitted work. PV received speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Di Lisa, Krasniqi, Pizzuti, Barba, Cannita, De Giorgi, Borella, Foglietta, Cariello, Ferro, Picardo, Mitidieri, Sini, Stani, Tonini, Santini, La Verde, Gambaro, Grassadonia, Tinari, Garrone, Sarobba, Livi, Meattini, D’Auria, Vergati, Gamucci, Pistelli, Berardi, Risi, Giotta, Lorusso, Rinaldi, Artale, Cazzaniga, Zustovich, Cappuzzo, Landi, Torrisi, Scagnoli, Botticelli, Michelotti, Fratini, Saltarelli, Paris, Muratore, Cassano, Gianni, Gaspari, Veltri, Zoratto, Fiorio, Fabbri, Mazzotta, Ruggeri, Pedersini, Valerio, Filomeno, Minelli, Scavina, Raffaele, Astone, De Vita, Pozzi, Riccardi, Greco, Moscetti, Giordano, Maugeri-Saccà, Zennaro, Botti, Pelle, Cappelli, Cavicchi, Vizza, Sanguineti, Tomao, Cortesi, Marchetti, Tomao, Speranza, Sperduti, Ciliberto and Vici.)

Pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, has been approved as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma ((R/M) HNSCC). However, only a minority of patients benefit from immunotherapy, which highlights the need to identify novel biomarkers to optimize treatment strategies. CD137 + T cells have been identified as tumour-specific T cells correlated with immunotherapy responses in several solid tumours. In this study, we investigated the role of circulating CD137 + T cells in (R/M) HNSCC patients undergoing pembrolizumab treatment. PBMCs obtained from 40 (R/M) HNSCC patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 were analysed at baseline via cytofluorimetry for the expression of CD137, and it was found that the percentage of CD3 + CD137 + cells is correlated with the clinical benefit rate (CBR), PFS, and OS. The results show that levels of circulating CD137 + T cells are significantly higher in responder patients than in non-responders ( p = 0.03). Moreover, patients with CD3 + CD137 + percentage ≥1.65% had prolonged OS ( p = 0.02) and PFS ( p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis, on a combination of biological and clinical parameters, showed that high levels of CD3 + CD137 + cells (≥1.65%) and performance status (PS) = 0 are independent prognostic factors of PFS (CD137 + T cells, p = 0.007; PS, p = 0.002) and OS (CD137 + T cells, p = 0.006; PS, p = 0.001). Our results suggest that levels of circulating CD137 + T cells could serve as biomarkers for predicting the response of (R/M) HNSCC patients to pembrolizumab treatment, thus contributing to the success of anti-cancer treatment.

Background: Despite the efficacy of immunotherapy, only a small percentage of patients achieves a long-term benefit in terms of overall survival. The aim of this study was to define an immune profile predicting the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors, who underwent ICI treatment were enrolled in this prospective study. Blood samples were collected at the baseline. Thirteen soluble immune checkpoints, 3 soluble adhesion molecules, 5 chemokines and 11 cytokines were analyzed. The results were associated with oncological outcomes., Results: Regardless of tumor type, patients with values of sTIM3, IFNα, IFNγ, IL1β, IL1α, IL12p70, MIP1β, IL13, sCD28, sGITR, sPDL1, IL10 and TNFα below the median had longer overall survival (p<0.05). By using cluster analysis and grouping the patients according to the trend of the molecules, two clusters were found. Cluster A had a significantly higher mean progression free survival (Cluster A=11.9 months vs Cluster B=3.5 months, p<0.01), a higher percentage of disease stability (Cluster A=34.5% vs. Cluster B=0%, p<0.05) and a lower percentage of disease progression (Cluster A=55.2% vs. Cluster B = 94.4%, p=0.04)., Conclusion: The combined evaluation of soluble molecules, rather than a single circulating factor, may be more suitable to represent the fitness of the immune system status in each patient and could allow to identify two different prognostic and predictive outcome profiles., Competing Interests: PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche, Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Incyte. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Botticelli, Pomati, Cirillo, Scagnoli, Pisegna, Chiavassa, Rossi, Schinzari, Tortora, Di Pietro, Cerbelli, Di Filippo, Amirhassankhani, Scala, Zizzari, Cortesi, Tomao, Nuti, Mezi and Marchetti.)

Background: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) are innovative small target molecules that, in combination with endocrine therapy, have recently been employed in the treatment of patients with HR + /HER2 - metastatic breast cancer (mBC). In this prospective study, we investigate the impact of CDK4/6i on the immune profile of patients with HR + /HER2 - mBC., Methods: Immune cell subsets were analysed using flow cytometry of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) isolated from patients with HR + /HER2 - mBC, both before and during treatment. Regulatory T cells (Tregs) were identified using the markers CD4, CD25, CTLA4, CD45RA, and intracellular FOXP3. Monocytic and polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells (M-MDSCs and PMN-MDSCs) and other immune populations were analysed using CD45, CD14, CD66b, CD11c, HLA-DR, CD3, CD8, CD28, CD137, PD1, CD45RA, CCR7, and Ki67., Findings: The percentage of circulating Tregs and M/PMN-MDSCs was significantly downregulated from baseline during CDK4/6i-treatment (p<0.0001 and p<0.05, respectively). In particular, the effector Treg subset (CD4 + CD25 + FOXP3 high CD45RA - ) was strongly reduced (p<0.0001). The decrease in Treg levels was significantly greater in responder patients than in non-responder patients. Conversely, CDK4/6i treatment was associated with increased levels of CD4 + T cells and anti-tumour CD137 + CD8 + T cells (p<0.05)., Interpretation: CDK4/6i treatment results in downregulation of Tregs, M-MDSCs, and PMN-MDSCs, thus weakening tumour immunosuppression. This decrease is associated with response to treatment, highlighting the importance of unleashing immunity in cancer treatment efficacy. These results suggest a novel mechanism of immunomodulation in mBC and provide valuable information for the future design of novel treatments combining CDK4/6i with immunotherapy in other cancer settings., Funding: Sapienza University of Rome., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest regarding this work. Paolo Marchetti (P.M.) has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Incyte. Marianna Nuti (M.N.) reports research grants from Incyte and IPSEN. Simone Scagnoli (S.S) has/had consulting fees with Pfizer, Novartis, Lily. Andrea Botticelli (A.B.) has/had a consultant/advisory role for MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Lily and Roche., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The recent addition of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) and CDK6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy has remarkably improved the outcome of patients affected with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal grow factor receptor 2 negative (HER2 -) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Ribociclib showed to be effective across most subgroups, regardless of the number and the site of metastasis. Up to 10% of patients with ABC, reported an oligometastatic condition, recently defined as a slow-volume metastatic disease with limited number and size of metastatic lesions (up to 5 and not necessarily in the same organ), potentially amenable for local treatment, aimed at achieving a complete remission status. Despite the wide use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in HR+, HER2-, ABC treatment, data regarding both locally advanced, inoperable disease and oligometastatic conditions are still poor. We reported a review and case series of HR+, HER2-, ABC patients treated with ribociclib as first-line therapy, for a locally advanced and oligometastatic conditions, reporting an impressive response and good safety profile., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Botticelli, Fabbri, Roberto, Alesini, Cirillo, D’Auria, Krasniqi, Marrucci, Muratore, Pantano, Pizzuti, Portarena, Rossi, Scagnoli and Marchetti.)

Background: The evolution of therapeutic landscape of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) has led to an unprecedented outcome improvement, even if the optimal sequence strategy is still debated. To address this issue and to provide a picture of the advancement of anti-HER2 treatments, we performed a large, multicenter, retrospective study of HER2-positive BC patients., Methods: The observational PANHER study included 1,328 HER2-positive advanced BC patients treated with HER2 blocking agents since June 2000 throughout July 2020. Endpoints of efficacy were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Patients who received a first-line pertuzumab-based regimen showed better PFS ( p < 0.0001) and OS ( p = 0.004) than those receiving other treatments. Median PFS and mOS from second-line starting were 8 and 28 months, without significant differences among various regimens. Pertuzumab-pretreated patients showed a mPFS and a mOS from second-line starting not significantly affected by type of second line, that is, T-DM1 or lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.80 and p = 0.45, respectively). Conversely, pertuzumab-naïve patients receiving second-line T-DM1 showed a significantly higher mPFS compared with that of patients treated with lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.004). Median OS from metastatic disease diagnosis was higher in patients treated with trastuzumab-based first line followed by second-line T-DM1 in comparison to pertuzumab-based first-line and second-line T-DM1 ( p = 0.003), although these data might be partially influenced by more favorable prognostic characteristics of patients in the pre-pertuzumab era . No significant differences emerged when comparing patients treated with 'old' or 'new' drugs ( p = 0.43), even though differences in the length of the follow-up between the two cohorts should be taken into account., Conclusion: Our results confirmed a relevant impact of first-line pertuzumab-based treatment and showed lower efficacy of second-line T-DM1 in trastuzumab/pertuzumab pretreated, as compared with pertuzumab-naïve patients. Our findings may help delineate a more appropriate therapeutic strategy in HER2-positive metastatic BC. Prospective randomized trials addressing this topic are awaited., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EK, IS, MB, MM, MMaz, EMV, IM, RB, FSDL, MP, LI, ER, NDO, ST, CF, KC, FR, AC, MAF, GB, AB, GDA, AC, AR, BTS, GS, FG, RS, DM, DC, EMC, VS, LMe, GT, MR, LM, MMi, EMR, PS, NS, LL, NT, AG, AFS, RR, MRV, EL, SS, BF, MMS, MDT, AM, AO, VL, EC, GS, PP, FC, LL, CB, FT, SC, GB, FP, FCav, OB, EF, JF, SS, and GC declare no conflicts of interest. LP received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Gentili. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Lilly. CN received travel grants/personal fees from Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AstraZeneca. EB is supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research AIRC-IG 20583; he was supported by the International Association for Lung Cancer (IASLC), the LILT (Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro I Tumori), and Fondazione Cariverona; he received speakers’ and travels’ fee from MSD, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, and Roche; consultant’s fee from Roche, Pfizer; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Roche. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees, advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre Fabre. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer. GT and DS: advisory board Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Incyte. PV received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly., (© The Author(s), 2021.)