Search

Introduction. Platinum-based chemotherapy represents the standard of care (SoC) for the first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The benefit of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to platinum-based chemotherapy was recently investigated. We performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of phase 3 clinical trials comparing ICI-based treatments. Methods. A systematic literature search was conducted on the MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases. The results were filtered by including only reports on clinical trials or randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2023, including 3047 patients from four clinical trials (EV302, CHECKMATE-901, IMVIGOR130, KEYNOTE-361). An IPD meta-analysis was performed by reconstructing IPD from Kaplan–Meier curves. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of Pembrolizumab + EV compared to experimental arms of the other trials of immunotherapy + chemotherapy. Results. The OS analysis showed an advantage of IPD from EV302 vs. all the other trials. For EV302 vs. KEYNOTE-361, the HR was 0.51; for EV302 vs. IMVIGOR130, the HR was 0.47; and for EV302 vs. CHECKMATE-901, the HR was 0.66 (CI 95% 0.51–0.85). In the PFS analysis, the EV302 arm showed a statistically significant advantage compared to CHECKMATE-901 (HR 0.66) and versus IMVIGOR130 (HR 0.51). Limitations: By using reconstructed IPD curves, it was not possible to adjust patient-level covariates, and the heterogeneity of the included population may have affected the pooled results. Conclusions: The EV302 experimental arm showed better OS and PFS when compared to the other immunochemotherapy combinations. An immunochemotherapy combination strategy at the beginning of treatment in mUC seems to be superior in terms of OS and PFS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone. EV–Pembrolizumab resulted to have better outcomes compared to avelumab, rather than other immunochemotherapy combinations. However, given the heterogeneity of these studies, a longer follow up and prospective trials are needed to confirm these data.

Early detection of disease progression is a crucial issue in the management of cancer patients, especially in metastatic settings. Currently, treatment selection mostly relies on criteria based on radiologic evaluations (RECIST). The aim of the present retrospective study is to evaluate the potential inclusion of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in hybrid criteria. CTC counts from a total of 160 patients with different metastatic tumors were analyzed for this purpose. In our cohort, 73 patients were affected by breast cancer, 69 by colorectal cancer and 18 by prostate cancer. PFS and OS were evaluated according to the corresponding prediction of disease progression by CTCs and RECIST criteria. In breast cancer, CTC-I has an important impact on the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values. When CTC-I predicted earlier than RECIST-I, the disease progression, the PFS and OS were shorter with respect to the opposite case. In particular, PFS was 11 (5–16) vs. 34 (23–45)—with p < 0.001—and OS was 80 (22–138) vs. 116 (43–189), p = 0.33. The results suggest a promising role of CTCs as complementary information which could significantly improve the clinical outcomes, and they encourage consideration of future trials to evaluate new hybrid criteria, particularly for patients with breast cancer.

The new landscape of treatments for metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (mRCC) is constantly expanding, but it is associated with the emergence of novel toxicities, adding to up to those observed in the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) era. Indeed, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination has been associated with the development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) involving multiple-organ systems which, even if rarely, had led to fatal outcomes. Moreover, due to the relatively recent addition of ICIs to the previously available treatments, the potential additive adverse effects of these combinations are still unknown. A prompt recognition and management of these toxicities currently represents a fundamental issue in oncology, since it correlates with the outcome of cancer patients. Even if clinical guidelines provide indications for the management of irAEs, no specific protocol to evaluate the individual risk of developing an adverse event during therapy is currently available. A multidisciplinary approach addressing appropriate interventions aimed at reducing the risk of any insidious, severe, and/or dose-limiting toxicity might represent the most efficacious strategy to timely prevent and manage severe irAEs, allowing indirectly to improve both patients’ cancer-specific survival and quality of life. In this review, we reported a five-case series of toxicity events that occurred at our center during treatment for mRCC followed by the remarks of physicians from different specialties, pinpointing the relevant role of an integrated and extended multidisciplinary team in a modern model of mRCC patient management.