Search

Background: The optimal treatment strategy after first-line induction therapy in advanced HER2-positive oeso-gastric adenocarcinoma (OGA) remains challenging. Methods: Patients treated with trastuzumab (T) plus platinum salts and fluoropyrimidine (F) as first-line chemotherapy between 2010 and 2020 for HER2-positive advanced OGA at 17 academic care centers in France, Italy, and Austria were included. The primary objective was the comparison of F + T vs T alone as maintenance regimen in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after a platinum-based chemotherapy induction + T. As secondary objective, PFS and OS between patients treated with reintroduction of initial chemotherapy or standard second-line chemotherapy at progression were assessed. Results: Among the 157 patients included, 86 (55%) received F + T and 71 (45%) T alone as a maintenance regimen after a median of 4 months of induction chemotherapy. Median PFS from start of maintenance therapy was 5.1 months in both groups (95% CI 4.2–7.7 for F + T and 95% CI 3.7–7.5 for T alone; p = 0.60) and median OS was 15.2 (95% CI 10.9–19.1) and 17.0 months (95% CI 15.5–21.6) for F + T and T alone, respectively (p = 0.40). Of 112/157 patients (71%) receiving systemic therapy after progression under maintenance, 26/112 (23%) were treated with a reintroduction of initial chemotherapy + T and 86/112 (77%) with a standard second-line regimen. Here, median OS was significantly longer with the reintroduction (13.8 (95% CI 12.1–19.9) vs 9.0 months (95% CI 7.1–11.9); p = 0.007) as confirmed by multivariate analysis (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28–0.85; p = 0.01). Conclusion: No additional benefit of adding F to T monotherapy as a maintenance treatment could be observed. Reintroduction of initial therapy at first progression may be a feasible approach to preserve later treatment lines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to determine whether immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) time-of-day infusion might influence the survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We retrospectively analysed patients who received single-agent anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in any line between 2016 and 2021. We calculated by Cox regression models the association between the proportion of ICI infusions received after 16:30h and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). 180 patients were included, 77% received ICI as second- or further-line (median of 12 infusions/patient). The median age was 65 years (IQR 57–70), 112 patients (62%) were male, 165 (92%) were current or former tobacco smokers, 140 (78%) had performance status (PS) 0 or 1, 26 (14%) were on steroid therapy at ICI initiation. Histology was non-squamous for 139 (77%), the median number of metastatic sites was 3, and 33% had brain metastases. Patients who received at least 20% of ICI infusions after 16:30h (65 out of 180, 36%) had a statistically significant shorter median PFS as compared with patients receiving less than 20% of infusions in the evening (4.9 vs 9.4 months, log-rank p = 0.020), while numerical but not statistical shorter OS was observed (14.0 vs 26.2 months, log-rank p = 0.090). In the multivariate analysis, receiving at least 20% of evening infusions did not significantly increase the risk of death, while PS and line of treatment were significantly correlated with the OS. On the contrary, a proportion of ICI administration after 16:30h ≥20% conferred an HR for the PFS of 1.44 (95% CI: 1.01–2.05, p = 0.043), but this prognostic effect was not found when including in the model the total number of ICI infusions received (HR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.83–1.75, p = 0.329). Time-of-day infusion of ICI may impact the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC. Underlying prognostic characteristics and the number of infusions received could represent conceivable confounding factors, linked to increased variance related to ICI infusion timing. Nonetheless, further studies may unravel chronobiological mechanisms modulating ICI efficacy. • Does immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) time-of-day infusion impact on survival? • Retrospective study, advanced NSCLC patients receiving single-agent ICI in any line. • Non-significant shorter OS in patients receiving ≥20% ICI infusions in the evening. • Significant shorter PFS in patients receiving ≥20% ICI infusion in the evening. • Chronobiological mechanisms modulating ICI efficacy should be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to describe the outcome of totally implantable venous-access port (TIVAP)-related infections due to Gram-negative aerobic bacilli (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), or GNAB, and assess the safety of conservative treatment. We conducted a retrospective study in a French teaching hospital, from January 2016 to December 2020, including adult patients treated for TIVAP-related infection due to GNAB. Success of conservative treatment was defined as a functional TIVAP 3 months after infection with no recurrence. We performed a bivariate analysis and analyzed causes for treatment failure. We included 68 patients (53 TIVAP-related bloodstream infections, 11 TIVAP-related infections, and 4 probable TIVAP-related infections) due to GNAB, mostly P. aeruginosa (50/68, 74%). TIVAP removal was initially decided for 49/68 patients (72%). Among the 19/68 (28%) patients with conservative treatment (all for infections caused by P. aeruginosa), 5/19 (26%) had successful treatment, 7/19 (37%) experienced failure (without sepsis or septic shock), 6/19 (32%) died within 3 months without TIVAP removal and no signs of infection recurrence, and 1 patient had TIVAP removal as it was no longer required. TIVAP-related infections caused by GNAB frequently require TIVAP removal. Conservative treatment can be performed in selected patients with a non-complicated infection caused by P. aeruginosa, who can benefit from the continuation of antineoplastic chemotherapy or palliative care. Treatment failures were not associated with sepsis or septic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gemcitabine (Gem) alone or with Nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is used as second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPA) after FOLFIRINOX (FFX) failure; however, no comparative data exist. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of adding Nab-paclitaxel to Gem for mPA after FFX failure.Methods: In this retrospective real-world multicenter study, from 2011 to 2019, patients with mPA receiving Gem-Nab (Gem 1000 mg/m² + Nab 125 mg/m², 3 out of 4 weeks) or Gem alone were included after progression on FFX.Results: A total of 427 patients were included. Patients receiving Gem-Nab had more metastatic sites, peritoneal disease and less PS 2 (24% vs. 35%). After median follow-up of 22 months, Gem-Nab was associated with better disease control rate (DCR) (56% vs. 32%; P < 0.001), progression-free survival (PFS) (3.5 vs. 2.3 months; 95% CI: 0.43-0.65) and overall survival (OS) (7.1 vs. 4.7 months; 95% CI: 0.53-0.86). After multivariate analysis, Gem-Nab and PS 0/1 were associated with better OS and PFS. Grade 3/4 toxicity was more frequent with Gem-Nab (44% vs. 29%).Conclusion: In this study, Gem-Nab was associated with better DCR, PFS and OS compared with Gem alone in patients with mPA after FFX failure, at the cost of higher toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) expanded treatment options, disease progression ultimately occurs for most patients. Rechallenge may be a compelling strategy in a refractory setting. Cabozantinib is the standard of care in first and later lines of therapy, but its activity in rechallenge is unknown. This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge, as defined by a second exposure after an interval of ≥3 months without treatment or ≥1 other treatment line, in patients with mRCC. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) at rechallenge. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety at rechallenge. We included 51 mRCC patients who received cabozantinib in a rechallenge setting between 2017 and 2022. Median age at diagnosis was 54 years, 78% were male, 90% had clear cell mRCC, and 92% had prior nephrectomy. 15 patients (29%) were rechallenged after a pause in treatment, whereas 36 (70.6%) had ≥1 other treatment lines between first cabozantinib exposure (CABO-1) and rechallenge (CABO-2). Median PFS was 15.1 months (mo, 95% Confidence interval 11.2–22.1) at CABO-1 and 14.4mo (95%CI 9.8-NR) at CABO-2. Median overall survival was 67.6mo for CABO-1 (95% CI 52.2-NR) and 27.4mo for CABO-2 (95%CI 17.2-NR); objective response rate was 70.6% for CABO-1 and 60% for CABO-2. CABO-2 PFS was higher for patients with CABO-1 PFS > 12 months, and for those who discontinued CABO-1 because of toxicity, without statistical significance. There were no unexpected adverse events. Cabozantinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients. • This is the first study evaluating the concept of cabozantinib rechallenge to date. • The population was highly selected with heavily pretreated patients. • At rechallenge, median PFS and OS were 14.4 and 27.4 months, and ORR was 59%. • Safety did not show unexpected adverse events at rechallenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve oncological outcomes in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) advanced solid tumours. Nevertheless, based on limited published data, the outcome of patients with MSI/dMMR pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) seems poorer when compared to other malignancies. This multi-institutional analysis sought to assess the efficacy and tolerability of ICIs in a large real-world cohort of patients with MSI/dMMR PDAC. We retrospectively collected data from patients with MSI/dMMR advanced PDAC treated with ICIs in 16 centers. Progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated from the start of treatment, and we report objective response and disease control rates according to RECIST V1.1. Thirty-one MSI/dMMR advanced PDAC patients were identified. Twenty-five patients received single-agent anti-PD-1 antibodies, three patients received the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab and three patients received immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy. Among 31 evaluable patients, 15 (48.4%) had an objective response (three complete responses and 12 partial responses), and six (19.4%) had stable disease. With a median follow-up of 18 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 26.7 months and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Disease control rates (DCRs) among patients with only one line of prior therapy (N = 17) was 76.5%. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were not observed. This retrospective analysis suggests that ICIs are effective and well tolerated in patients with MSI/dMMR advanced PDAC. Hence, our work supports the use of PD-1 inhibition in this group of patients with high unmet medical need. • Largest series of metastatic MSI/dMMR PDAC patients treated by ICIs. • ORR and DCR were observed in 48.4% and 67.7% of the patients. • Median PFS was 26.7 months and median OS was not reached. • No significant difference was found between the different anti-PD(L)1 drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) and collecting duct carcinoma (CDC) are rare entities with a poor outcome. First-line metastatic treatment is based on gemcitabine + platinum chemotherapy (GC) regimen but retrospective data suggest enhanced anti-tumour activity with the addition of bevacizumab. Therefore, we performed a prospective assessment of the safety and efficacy of GC + bevacizumab in metastatic RMC/CDC. We conducted a phase 2 open-label trial in 18 centres in France in patients with metastatic RMC/CDC and no prior systemic treatment. Patients received bevacizumab plus GC up to 6 cycles followed, for non-progressive disease, by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The co-primary end-points were objective response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months (ORR-6; PFS-6). PFS, overall survival (OS) and safety were secondary end-points. At interim analysis, the trial was closed due to toxicity and lack of efficacy. From 2015 to 2019, 34 of the 41 planned patients have been enroled. After a median follow-up of 25 months, ORR-6 and PFS-6 were 29.4% and 47.1%, respectively. Median OS was 11.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.6–24.2). Seven patients (20.6%) discontinued bevacizumab because of toxicities (hypertension, proteinuria, colonic perforation). Grade 3–4 toxicities were reported in 82% patients, the most common being haematologic toxicities and hypertension. Two patients experienced grade 5 toxicity (subdural haematoma related to bevacizumab and encephalopathy of unknown origin). Our study showed no benefit for bevacizumab added to chemotherapy in metastatic RMC and CDC with higher than expected toxicity. Consequently, GC regimen remains a therapeutic option for RMC/CDC patients. • The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy failed to increase efficacy. • The incidence of adverse events with bevacizumab was higher than expected. • Platinum plus gemcitabine remains an treatment option for metastatic CDC/RMC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 has revolutionised the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and has been investigated in early NSCLC, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, anti-CTLA-4 antibodies and radiotherapy. Although more mature data are needed before setting a change of paradigm in early stages, reports of pathological response rates and disease-free survival are promising, especially with neoadjuvant multimodality approaches. Nevertheless, major pathological response rates for neoadjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy rarely exceed 40%, and biomarkers for characterising patients who may benefit the most from ICIs are lacking. These biomarkers have a distinct value from the metastatic setting, with highly different tumour biologies. Among the most investigated so far in this context, programmed death-ligand 1 expression and, to a lesser extent, tumour mutational burden seem to correlate better with higher pathological response rates and survival. Epidermal growth factor receptor , Serine/Threonine Kinase 11 and Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 mutations rise as essential determinations for the treatment selection in early-stage NSCLC. Emerging and promising approaches comprise evaluation of blood-based ratios, microbiota, and baseline intratumoural TCR clonality. Circulating tumour DNA will be of great help in the near future when selecting best candidates for adjuvant ICIs, monitoring the tumour response to the neoadjuvant treatment in order to improve the rates of complete resections in the early stage. • Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)are becoming a standard in early non-small cell lung cancer but do not benefit all patients. • Programmed death-ligand 1 expression and tumour mutational burden are the better-documented biomarkers. • Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor , Serine/Threonine Kinase 11 or Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 alterations yield poor benefit from ICIs. • Emerging biomarkers include TCR clonality, microbiota and blood-based ratios. • Circulating tumour DNA is a reliable tool to evaluate disease burden following surgery or ICIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To validate a deep learning (DL) algorithm for measurement of skeletal muscular index (SMI) and prediction of overall survival in oncology populations. Methods: A retrospective single-center observational study included patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2019. A set of 37 patients was used for technical validation of the algorithm, comparing manual vs DL-based evaluations. Segmentations were compared using mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), SMI using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. Overall survivals (OS) were compared using log-rank (Kaplan-Meier) and Mann-Whitney tests. Generalizability of the prognostic value was tested in an independent validation population (N = 87). Results: Differences between two manual segmentations (DSC = 0.91, CCC = 0.98 for areas) or manual vs. automated segmentation (DSC = 0.90, CCC = 0.98 for areas, CCC = 0.97 for SMI) had the same order of magnitude. Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference of −3.33 cm2 [95%CI: −15.98, 9.1] between two manual segmentations, and −3.28 cm2 [95% CI: −14.77, 8.21] for manual vs. automated segmentations. With each method, 20/37 (56%) patients were classified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenic vs. non-sarcopenic groups had statistically different survival curves with median OS of 6.0 vs. 12.5 (p = 0.008) and 6.0 vs. 13.9 (p = 0.014) months respectively for manual and DL methods. In the independent validation population, sarcopenic patients according to DL had a lower OS (10.7 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.033). Conclusion: A DL algorithm allowed accurate estimation of SMI compared to manual reference standard. The DL-calculated SMI demonstrated a prognostic value in terms of OS. Key Points: • A deep learning algorithm allows accurate estimation of skeletal muscle index compared to a manual reference standard with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.97. • Sarcopenic patients according to SMI thresholds after segmentation by the deep learning algorithm had statistically significantly lower overall survival compared to non-sarcopenic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One randomized phase III trial comparing chemotherapy (CT) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated significant efficacy of ICI in deficient DNA mismatch repair system/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer. However, few studies have compared ICI with CT in other advanced dMMR/MSI-H digestive tumors. In this multicenter study, we included patients with advanced dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive tumors treated with chemotherapy and/or ICIs. Patients were divided retrospectively into two groups, a CT group and an immunotherapy (IO) group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A propensity score approach using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to deal with potential differences between the two groups. 133 patients (45.1/27.1/27.8% with gastric/small bowel/other carcinomas) were included. The majority of patients received ICI in 1st (29.1%) or 2nd line (44.4%). The 24-month PFS rates were 7.9% in the CT group and 71.2% in the IO group. Using the IPTW method, IO treatment was associated with better PFS (HR=0.227; 95% CI 0.147–0.351; p < 0.0001). The overall response rate was 26.3% in the CT group versus 60.7% in the IO group (p < 0.001) with prolonged duration of disease control in the IO group (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, predictive factors of PFS for patients treated with IO were good performance status, absence of liver metastasis and prior primary tumor resection, whereas no association was found for the site of the primary tumor. In the absence of randomized trials, our study highlights the superior efficacy of ICI compared with standard-of-care therapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive cancer, regardless of tumor type, with acceptable toxicity. • Immunotherapy (IO) has high efficacy in mismatch-repair deficient (dMMR) tumors. • No trial compared chemotherapy (CT) and ICI in non-colorectal dMMR digestive tumors. • ICI has higher progression-free survival, regardless primary tumor site. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peripheral blood inflammatory indices, like the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), may reflect the host's pro-inflammatory status and systemic immune response to cancer-related inflammation. We reviewed 22 combined prognostic scores based on peripheral blood-derived inflammatory indices for aNSCLC patients treated with single-agent or combination immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as first-line or subsequent therapy lines and attempted evidence strength assessment and scoring. The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI), consisting of derived NLR and LDH, was the most studied score with validated prognostic value in over five thousand aNSCLC ICI-naïve or pretreated patients. The combination of NLR and tumour programmed-cell-death-ligand1 (PD-L1) expression showed a predictive value. The Lung-Immune-Prognostic score (LIPS) might help identify patients with poor performance status but a favourable outcome following first-line ICI. These non-expensive scores can help clinicians discuss the prognosis with aNSCLC patients approaching ICI, identify those less likely to benefit from single-agent ICI and orient future clinical research. • Peripheral blood inflammatory indices may indicate the host pro-inflammatory status. • They have been exploited in prognostic scores for NSCLC treated with immunotherapy. • Twenty-two combined prognostic scores for aNSCLC were reviewed. • They can help clinicians to discuss the prognosis with patients. • They could predict the benefit of immunotherapy and orient future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We assessed the added value of incorporating carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) to circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and pathological TN (pTN) stage for risk classification in stage 3 colon cancer (CC)., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed postoperative CEA values in patients with CC from the IDEA-France phase 3 trial. The relation between disease-free survival (DFS) and CEA was modeled through restricted cubic splines. Prognostic value of CEA, ctDNA, and pTN was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis was used to identify prognostic and predictive factors for DFS., Results: Among 696 patients (35%), CEA values were retrievable, and for 405 (20%) both CEA and ctDNA were available. An optimized CEA threshold of 2 ng/mL was identified, the 3-year DFS was 66.4% for patients above the threshold and 80.9% for those below (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.33-2.28, P < .001). In multivariate analysis, CEA ≥ 2 ng/mL contributed significantly to model variability, becoming an independent prognostic factor for DFS (HR, 1.82; 95% CI,1.27-2.59), alongside ctDNA (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.16-3.03) and pTN (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.24-2.54). A novel integrated risk classification combining CEA, ctDNA, and pTN stage reclassified 19.8% of pT4/N2 patients as low risk and 2.5% of pT3/N1 patients as high risk. This new classification demonstrated the 3-year DFS of 80.8% for low-risk patients and 55.4% for high-risk patients (HR, 2.66, 95% CI, 1.84-3.86, P < .001)., Conclusions: Postoperative CEA value is a prognostic factor for DFS in stage 3 CC, independently of ctDNA and pTN. It advocates for systematic reporting in future adjuvant trials. Integrating both biomarkers with pTN could refine risk classification in stage 3 CC., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Limited data are available on long-term respiratory disabilities in patients following acute COVID-19., Patients and Methods: This prospective, monocentric, observational cohort study included patients admitted to our hospital with acute COVID-19 between 12 March and 24 April 2020. Clinical, functional and radiological data were collected up to 28 months after hospital discharge., Results: Among 715 patients hospitalised for COVID-19, 493 (69.0%) were discharged alive. We could access complete medical records for 268 out of 493 patients (54.4%); 138 out of 268 (51.5%) exhibited persistent respiratory symptoms and agreed with the data collection and follow-up. Patients were predominantly male (64.5%), with a mean±sd age of 58.9±15.3 years. At the last follow-up, the leading symptoms were asthenia (31.5%), dyspnoea (29.8%) and neuropsychological symptoms (17.7%). Lung function improved up to the last visit. Mean diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide ( D LCO ) was 77.8% of predicted value, total lung capacity (TLC) was 83.5% and O 2 desaturation during exercise (O 2 desaturation) was 2.3%. While D LCO improved over the entire period, TLC improved in the early phase and O 2 desaturation in the late phase. Except for those with lung comorbidities, only one patient presented with minor functional and chest radiological alterations at 28 months., Conclusion: Patients with acute COVID-19 discharged alive showed improved clinical symptoms, lung function parameters and radiological signs up to 28 months post-infection. Persistent symptoms consisted mainly of asthenia and dyspnoea, with lung function returning to normal. One patient without prior respiratory issues exhibited moderate pulmonary fibrosis., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Introduction: General Practitioners (GPs) play a key role of gatekeeper, as they coordinate patients' care. However, most of them reported having difficulty to refer patients to hospital, especially in semi-urgent context. To facilitate the referral of semi-urgent patients, we implemented an e-referral platform, named SIPILINK, within 4 wards from a large public French hospital (internal medicine, diabetology, gynaecological surgery and oncology wards). Here, we aimed to evaluate the SIPILINK e-referral platform after 2 years of implementation., Methods: The evaluation included a multidimensional assessment based on the RE-AIM framework with the analysis of implementation, requests, health professionals' satisfaction, and estimated hospital payment., Results: Over 2 years of implementation, GPs sent 113 requests to hospital. Hospital respected the time of response requested by GPs in 93 % of cases and proposed a consultation or hospitalization in respectively 40.7 % and 10.6 % of cases. 100 % of GPs and 78 % of Hospital Practitioners (HPs) were satisfied with the quality of exchanges. 77 % of HPs and 100 % of Care Pathway Managers (CPMs) found that patient care pathways were improved. Nearly all practitioners would recommend this platform for patient referrals., Discussion: SIPILINK shows promise in streamlining the referral process, enhancing communication, and improving patient care pathways. Further studies including the impact on the quality of care, are needed to assess its effectiveness and sustainability in healthcare settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Inflammation and neutrophils play a central role in both COVID-19 disease and cancer. We aimed to assess the impact of pre-existing tumor-related inflammation on COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer and to elucidate the role of circulating neutrophil subpopulations., Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of 524 patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection, assessing the relationship between clinical outcomes and circulating inflammatory biomarkers collected before and during COVID-19 infection. Additionally, a single-center prospective cohort study provided data for an exploratory analysis, assessing the immunophenotype of circulating neutrophils and inflammatory cytokines. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and the severity of COVID-19 disease., Results: Prior to COVID-19, 25% of patients with cancer exhibited elevated dNLR, which increased to 55% at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. We developed the FLARE score, incorporating both tumor- and infection-induced inflammation, which categorized patients into four prognostic groups. The poor prognostic group had a 30-day mortality rate of 68%, significantly higher than the 23% in the favorable group ( p < 0.0001). This score proved to be an independent predictor of early mortality. This prospective analysis revealed a shift towards immature forms of neutrophils and higher IL-6 levels in patients with cancer and severe COVID-19 infection., Conclusions: A pre-existing tumor-induced pro-inflammatory state significantly impacts COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. The FLARE score, derived from circulating inflammatory markers, emerges as an easy-to-use, globally accessible, effective tool for clinicians to identify patients with cancer at heightened risk of severe COVID-19 complications and early mortality who might benefit most from immediate and intensive treatment strategies. Furthermore, our findings underscore the significance of immature neutrophils in the progression of COVID-19 in patients with cancer, advocating for further investigation into how these cells contribute to both cancer and COVID-19 disease.

Introduction: The LIPI, based on pretreatment derived neutrophils/[leukocytes-neutrophils] ratio (dNLR) and LDH, is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess baseline LIPI correlation with durvalumab consolidation outcomes in the locally advanced setting., Material and Methods: Multicentre retrospective study (330 patients) with stage III unresectable NSCLC treated with durvalumab after chemo-radiotherapy between April 2015 and December 2020; 65 patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy only. Baseline LIPI characterized 3 groups: good (dNLR≤3+LDH≤ULN), intermediate (dNLR>3/LDH>ULN) and poor (dNLR>3+LDH>ULN). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: In the durvalumab cohort, median age was 67 years, 95% smokers, 98% with a performance status of 0-1; 60% had nonsquamous histology and 16% a PD-L1 expression <1%. Radiotherapy was delivered concurrently in 81%. LIPI was evaluable in 216 patients: 66% good, 31% intermediate, 3% poor. LIPI significantly correlated with median OS (median follow-up: 19 months): 18.1 months vs. 47.0 months vs. not reached in poor, intermediate and good LIPI groups, respectively (P = .03). A trend between objective response rate and LIPI groups was observed: 0% vs. 41% vs. 45%, respectively (P = .05). The pooled intermediate/poor LIPI group was associated with shorter OS (HR 1.97; P = .03) and higher risk of progressive disease (OR 2.68; P = .047). Survivals and response were not influenced in the control cohort., Conclusion: Baseline LIPI correlated with outcomes in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with durvalumab consolidation, but not in those who only received chemo-radiotherapy, providing further evidence of its prognostic and potential predictive role of ICI benefit in NSCLC., Competing Interests: Disclosure VAA: Lectures and educational activities: Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MSD; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen; RL: Personal fees: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Travel, Accommodations: Roche, Italfarmaco; RLC: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pierre-Fabre, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim; JBB: Reports grants and personal fees from Roche and Pfizer, and personal fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Novartis, outside the submitted work; SP: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Takeda (outside the submitted manuscript); MT: Travel, accommodation, expenses: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Eli Lilly. Honoraria as medical writer: Novartis, Amgen, MSD. None related to the current manuscript; MS: Speaker, Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Avemtis, Siemens Healthineers, Takeda; Research support (institutional): Amgen, BMS, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens Healthiness; EN: has participated in lectures and advisory boards from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi and Bayer. E. N. has received research funding support from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb and Nanostring; GL: Honorary from Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, AstraZeneca, Merck, Janssen; Consulting and advisory role from Pfizer and AstraZeneca; Research funding from AstraZeneca, Lucence, Xilis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, EMD Serono, Blueprint Medicines, Tesaro, Vavarian Nordic, Novartis, G1 Therapeutics. AdaptImmune, BMS, GSK, Abbvie, Rgenix, Pfizer, Roche, Genentech, Lilly, Janssen; travel, accommodations and expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Squibb Sons, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Celgene, Ibsen, Pharmacyclocs, Merck, AstraZeneca, Seagen; DS: Consulting, advisory role: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Principal Investigator in clinical trial sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eli Lilly. Travel, Accommodations: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer; RGC: Consulting, advisory role or lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Janseen, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi; honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Novartis; clinical trials research from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis; VB: Consulting, advisory role: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche; MC: Advisory or Consultancy role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Lilly, Roche. Honoraria, lectures: Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Takeda. Travel expenses: Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre. Institutional financial interests: Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Roche; BB: Sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma; DP: Consulting, advisory role or lectures: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche. Clinical trials research: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology, Pfizer; LM: Research grant/Funding (self): Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Stilla, Inivata; Advisory/Consultancy: Roche Diagnostics, Takeda; Honoraria (self): Bristol Myers Squibb, Tecnofarma, Roche; Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, AstraZeneca. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The outstanding efficacy of immunotherapy in metastatic dMMR/MSI gastro-intestinal (GI) cancers has led to a rapid increase in the number of patients treated. However, 20-30% of patients experience primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIPR) and need better characterization., Methods: This AGEO real-world study retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of ICIs and identified clinical variables associated with ICIPR in patients with metastatic dMMR/MSI GI cancers treated with immunotherapy between 2015 and 2022., Results: 399 patients were included, 284 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 115 with non-CRC, mostly treated by an anti-PD(L)1 (88.0%). PFS at 24 months was 55.8% (95CI [50.8-61.2]) and OS at 48 months was 59.1% (95CI [53.0-65.9]). ORR was 51.0%, and 25.1% of patients were ICIPR. There was no statistical difference in ORR, DCR, PFS, or OS between CRC and non-CRC groups. In multivariable analysis, ICIPR was associated with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (OR = 3.36), liver metastases (OR = 2.19), peritoneal metastases (OR = 2.00), ≥1 previous line of treatment (OR = 1.83), and age≤50 years old (OR = 1.76)., Conclusion: These five clinical factors associated with primary resistance to ICIs should be considered by physicians to guide treatment choice in GI dMMR/MSI metastatic cancer patients., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Introduction: Sequential anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) followed by small targeted therapy use is associated with increased prevalence of adverse events (AEs) in NSCLC. KRASG12C inhibitor sotorasib may trigger severe immune-mediated hepatotoxicity when used in sequence or in combination with anti-PD-(L)1. This study was designed to address whether sequential anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib therapy increases the risk of hepatotoxicity and other AEs., Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective study of consecutive advanced KRAS G12C -mutant NSCLC treated with sotorasib outside clinical trials in 16 French medical centers. Patient records were reviewed to identify sotorasib-related AEs (National Cancer Institute Common Classification Criteria for Adverse Events-Version 5.0). Grade 3 and higher AE was considered as severe. Sequence group was defined as patients who received an anti-PD-(L)1 as last line of treatment before sotorasib initiation and control group as patients who did not receive an anti-PD-(L)1 as last line of treatment before sotorasib initiation., Results: We identified 102 patients who received sotorasib, including 48 (47%) in the sequence group and 54 (53%) in the control group. Patients in the control group received an anti-PD-(L)1 followed by at least one treatment regimen before sotorasib in 87% of the cases or did not receive an anti-PD-(L)1 at any time before sotorasib in 13% of the cases. Severe sotorasib-related AEs were significantly more frequent in the sequence group compared with those in the control group (50% versus 13%, p < 0.001). Severe sotorasib-related AEs occurred in 24 patients (24 of 48, 50%) in the sequence group, and among them 16 (67%) experienced a severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity. Severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity was threefold more frequent in the sequence group compared with that in the control group (33% versus 11%, p = 0.006). No fatal sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity was reported. Non-liver severe sotorasib-related AEs were significantly more frequent in the sequence group (27% versus 4%, p < 0.001). Severe sotorasib-related AEs typically occurred in patients who received last anti-PD-(L)1 infusion within 30 days before sotorasib initiation., Conclusions: Sequential anti-PD-(L)1 and sotorasib therapy are associated with a significantly increased risk of severe sotorasib-related hepatotoxicity and severe non-liver AEs. We suggest avoiding starting sotorasib within 30 days from the last anti-PD-(L)1 infusion., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy plus immunotherapy is the standard of care for patients with metastatic NSCLC. No study has evaluated the outcomes of second-line chemotherapy treatments after progression following first-line chemo-immunotherapy., Method: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of second line (2L) chemotherapies after progression under first-line (1L) chemo-immunotherapy, measured by overall survival (2L-OS) and progression free survival (2L-PFS)., Results: A total of 124 patients were included. The mean age was 63.1 years, 30.6 % of the patients were female, 72.6 % had an adenocarcinoma and 43.5 % had a poor ECOG-performance status prior to 2L initiation. Sixty-four (52.0 %) patients were considered resistant to first line chemo-immunotherapy. (1L-PFS < 6 months). In 2L treatments, 57 (46.0 %) patients received taxane monotherapy, 25 (20.1 %) taxane plus anti-angiogenic, 12 (9.7 %) platinum-based chemotherapy and 30 (24.2 %) other chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 8.3 months (95 %CI: 7.2-10.2), post initiation of 2L treatment, the median 2L-OS was 8.1 months (95 % CI: 6.4-12.7) and the median 2L-PFS was 2.9 months (95 %CI: 2.4-3.3). Overall, the 2L-objective response and 2L-disease control rates were 16.0 %, and 42.5 %, respectively. Taxane plus anti-angiogenic and platinum rechallenge achieved longest median 2L-OS: not reached (95 %CI: 5.8-NR) and 17.6 months (95 %CI 11.6-NR), respectively (p = 0.05). Patients resistant to the 1L treatment had inferior outcomes (2L-OS 5.1 months, 2L-PFS 2.3 months) compared with 1L responders (2L-OS 12.7 months, 2L-PFS 3.2 months)., Conclusion: In this real-life cohort, 2L chemotherapy achieved modest activity following progression under chemo-immunotherapy. 1L-resistant patients remained a refractory population, highlighting a need for new 2L strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Collecting duct carcinoma (also known as Bellini tumour) and renal medullary carcinoma are two extremely rare and aggressive renal cancers. They are both less responsive to conventional treatments used in clear cell renal carcinoma. There are very few studies evaluating their optimal management and currently, at the metastatic stage, polychemotherapy based on platinum salts remains the most widely used. The emergence of new treatments such as anti-angiogenic TKIs, immunotherapy or treatments targeting specific genetic abnormalities, opens up a new field of possibilities in the management of these cancers. The evaluation of the response to these treatments is therefore essential. In this article, we will review the status of their management and the various studies that have evaluated recent treatments in these two cancers., (Copyright © 2023 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)