Search

Aims: We performed a meta-analysis to assess the relative risk (RR) of all-grade and grade 3–4 hypertransaminasemia in studies comparing immune-based combinations with sunitinib in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Materials & methods: Outcomes of interest included all-grade and grade 3–4 hypertransaminasemia measured as RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: RRs for all-grade hypertransaminasemia were 1.73 (95% CI: 1.25–2.4) and 1.63 (95% CI: 1.25–2.12) in patients receiving immunocombinations and sunitinib, respectively. The pooled RRs for grade 3–4 hypertransaminasemia were 3.24 and 3.04 in patients treated with immunocombinations or sunitinib. Conclusion: Immune-based combinations were associated with higher hypertransaminasemia risk. Physicians should pay attention to these common but overlooked events. Careful monitoring of tolerability remains a crucial need.

Despite all the improvements achieved over the last decade, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been associated to a wide range of adverse drug events, which are frequently markedly different from those observed with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapies, such as sorafenib.We performed a meta-analysis with the aim to compare grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), grade 5 TRAEs, serious TRAEs, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation in ICIs versus sorafenib across phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Patients treated with ICIs showed higher risk of serious TRAEs (OR 1.48, 95% CI = 1.16-1.9) while sorafenib treatment was associated with higher risk of TRAEs leading to discontinuation (OR 0.65, 95% CI = 0.48-0.89). No differences in grade 3/4 TRAEs and grade 5 TRAEs.Beyond activity and efficacy, careful consideration should be given to toxicity while choosing the appropriate first-line treatment in HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most frequent type of primary liver tumor. Most HCC patients present with advanced disease at diagnosis and the recurrence rate after surgery remains high. Treatment options for advanced HCC are limited, with sorafenib representing the only systemic agent approved for treatment of advanced HCC in more than a decade. However, in recent years new molecular targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of advanced HCC. In particular, combinations of ICIs with antiangiogenic drugs, or with other ICIs, represent one of the most promising strategies. Herein we provide a comprehensive overview of the main therapeutic advances in the systemic treatment of HCC, focusing on the most relevant ongoing clinical trials.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide, still representing an important cause of cancer-related death. Recent years have seen the emergence of novel systemic treatments for HCC patients, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Nonetheless, several questions regarding HCC immunotherapy remain unanswered, especially in terms of biochemical predictors of response.In the current paper, we will discuss available evidence regarding predictive biomarkers of response to HCC immunotherapy. A literature search was conducted in January 2022 of Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases.The identification of predictive biomarkers represents an unmet need in HCC patients receiving ICIs. The HCC medical community is called to further efforts aimed to elucidate the effective role of PD-L1 expression, TMB, MSI, gut microbiota, and other emerging biomarkers.

The 2021 has seen the publication of two practice-changing trials on second-line fluoropyrimidine-based doublet chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis aimed at assessing the overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and overall response rate (ORR) in ABC-06 and NIFTY trials. We retrieved all the relevant trials through PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, and EMBASE; additionally, proceedings of the main international oncological meetings were also searched for relevant abstracts. Outcomes of interest included OS, DCR, and ORR. Hazard Ratios (HRs) and their 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for OS, and Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for DCR and ORR, were extracted. According to our results, fluoropyrimidine-based doublet chemotherapy significantly decreased the risk of death (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49���0.8) compared with control treatment. In addition, higher DCR and ORR were observed in BTC patients receiving fluoropyrimidine-based combinations. Although ABC-06 and NIFTY have recently established fluoropyrimidine-based doublet chemotherapy as the standard of care, the role of second-line chemotherapy remains the object of debate in the BTC medical community. Further studies are required to clarify the role of second-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in some ���neglected��� populations, including BTC patients with poor ECOG-PS.

Stage I–III triple-negative breast cancer accounts for approximately 15–20% of new diagnoses of early breast cancer. Novel systemic treatment options have recently been assessed as part of the neoadjuvant approach, such as the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, several questions remain unanswered, including the identification of predictors of response to immunotherapy in this setting, and further efforts aimed at identifying reliable predictors and clarifying the effective role of PD-L1 status, tumor mutational burden, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and other biomarkers are warranted. Herein we will provide an overview of recent clinical studies of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, especially focusing on the recently presented and published KEYNOTE-522, IMpassion031 and GeparNUEVO trials.

Background. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been evaluated as neoadjuvant treatment in urothelial carcinoma (UC) patients, with these agents reporting encouraging pathologic complete response (pCR) rates. Herein, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the incidence of pCR in UC patients treated with neoadjuvant ICI. Moreover, we investigated the impact of PD-L1 expression in this patient population, exploring the possible role of PD-L1 status as predictive biomarker. Materials and Methods. We retrieved all the relevant trials through PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library and EMBASE; moreover, proceedings of the main international oncological meetings were also searched for relevant abstracts. Eligible trials assessed pre-operative ICI in UC patients. Results. Our meta-analysis has highlighted a pooled pCR rate of 36.6% in the overall population; interestingly, pCR was higher in PD-L1 positive compared with PD-L1 negative UCs (49.5% versus 35.1%, respectively). Conclusions. Positive signals emanating from neoadjuvant immunotherapy should encourage the scientific community to persist in the long road toward finding more effective treatments for UC patients.

Background. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently represented a breakthrough in urothelial carcinoma (UC). Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are routinely used for extended time periods in UC patients, with these agents having potentially and frequently undervalued effects on ICIs efficacy. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis aimed at investigating the impact of concomitant PPI administration on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients receiving immunotherapy for metastatic UC. Results. Two studies encompassing a total of 1015 patients were included. The pooled Hazard Ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS were 1.55 (95% CI, 1.31–1.84) and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.23–1.66), respectively, suggesting that the administration of PPIs was negatively associated with PFS and with OS in UC patients treated with ICIs. Conclusions. The current meta-analysis represents the first study to provide a systematic evaluation of the impact of concomitant PPI use in UC patients treated with ICIs. Further studies are warranted on this topic to clarify the relationship between gut microbiome, antiacid exposure, and cancer immunotherapy. In the current era of medical oncology, progress in this setting will require the collaboration of basic science and clinical research to optimize systemic treatment and to improve the outcomes of UC patients receiving ICIs.

Background: For assessing the predictability of oncology neoadjuvant therapy results, the background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) parameter in breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has acquired increased interest. This work aims to qualitatively evaluate the BPE parameter as a potential predictive marker for neoadjuvant therapy. Method: Three radiologists examined, in triple-blind modality, the MRIs of 80 patients performed before the start of chemotherapy, after three months from the start of treatment, and after surgery. They identified the portion of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) and BPE of the contralateral breast to the tumor in the basal control pre-treatment (baseline). Results: We observed a reduction of BPE classes in serial MRI checks performed during neoadjuvant therapy, as compared to baseline pre-treatment conditions, in 61.3% of patients in the intermediate step, and in 86.7% of patients in the final step. BPE reduction was significantly associated with sequential anthracyclines/taxane administration in the first cycle of neoadjuvant therapy compared to anti-HER2 containing therapies. The therapy response was also significantly related to tumor size. There were no associations with menopausal status, fibroglandular tissue (FGT) amount, age, BPE baseline, BPE in intermediate, and in the final MRI step. Conclusions: The measured variability of this parameter during therapy could predict therapy effectiveness in early stages, improving decision-making in the perspective of personalized medicine. Our preliminary results suggest that BPE may represent a predictive factor in response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, warranting future investigations in conjunction with radiomics.

Characterization of breast cancer into intrinsic molecular profiles has allowed women to live longer, undergoing personalized treatments. With the aim of investigating the relation between different values of ki67 and the predisposition to develop a breast cancer-related IDE at different ages, we enrolled 900 patients with a first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, and we partitioned the dataset into two sub-samples with respect to an age value equal to 50 years. For each sample, we performed a Kaplan–Meier analysis to compare the IDE-free survival curves obtained with reference to different ki67 values. The analysis on patients under 50 years old resulted in a p-value < 0.001, highlighting how the behaviors of patients characterized by a ki67 ranging from 10% to 20% and greater than 20% were statistically significantly similar. Conversely, patients over 50 years old characterized by a ki67 ranging from 10% to 20% showed an IDE-free survival probability significantly greater than patients with a ki67 greater than 20%, with a p-value of 0.01. Our work shows that the adoption of two different ki67 values, namely, 10% and 20%, might be discriminant in designing personalized treatments for patients under 50 years old and over 50 years old, respectively.

(1) Background: In recent years, immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), representing a therapeutic breakthrough in this field. Antacid agents such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are commonly prescribed for extended periods in NSCLC patients, and these drugs have the potential to modify the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). (2) Materials and Methods: Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of PPIs and H2RAs on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients receiving immunotherapy for metastatic NSCLC. Effect measures for OS were Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs), which were extracted from available studies. Forest plots were used to assess HRs to describe the relationship between treatment and OS in the specified cohorts of patients. (3) Results: Six studies were included in the analysis, involving 2267 patients. The pooled HRs for OS and PFS were 1.4 (95% CI, 1.25–1.58) and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17–1.43), respectively, suggesting that PPIs and H2RAs administration was negatively associated with PFS and OS. (4) Conclusion: Concomitant antacid use could modify the activity of ICIs in NSCLC patients.

// Girolamo Ranieri 1 , Ilaria Marech 1 , Mariangela Porcelli 1 , Francesco Giotta 1 , Gennaro Palmiotti 1 , Giuseppe Laricchia 1 , Vito Fazio 1 and Cosmo Damiano Gadaleta 1 1 Interventional and Medical Oncology Unit, National Cancer Research Center, Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Viale Orazio Flacco, Bari, Italy Correspondence to: Girolamo Ranieri, email: // Keywords : hepatic intra-arterial chemotherapy; nab-paclitaxel; liver metastases; breast cancer Received : November 06, 2017 Accepted : December 11, 2017 Published : December 31, 2017 Abstract About half of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) have unresectable liver metastases (LMs) or liver-predominant disease (LPD). Unfortunately systemic chemotherapy has limited tumor response due to LMs are supplied by hepatic artery. Hepatic intra-arterial (HAI) have antitumor activity in pretreated patients with LMs. Here we report the case of a 55-year-old woman affected by BCLPD and heavily pretreated. LMs responded to treatment based on HAI with 5-fluorouracil and nab-paclitaxel systemic chemotherapy, and they completely disappeared on a CT-scan. We conclude that this combination chemotherapy is safe and may be very useful for the treatment of patients with BCLPD. Therefore, this combination should be evaluated in a large study.

Background/aim Brain metastases are an additional challenge in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) because most chemotherapy agents cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. Nivolumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, but because patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases are typically excluded from registration trials, 'field-practice' data are needed. Patients and methods Patients in the Italian cohort of the Expanded Access Program (EAP) who had CNS metastases at baseline were analyzed. Results Thirty-seven patients with CNS metastases received a median of six doses of nivolumab. Three patients (8%) had grade 3-4 adverse events and one patient discontinued due to an adverse event. The objective response rate was 19%. Median overall survival was 5.8 (95% confidence interval=1.9-9.8) months and median progression-free survival was 4.9 (95% confidence interval=2.7-7.1) months. Conclusion The safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with CNS metastases appear to be similar to those seen in the overall EAP cohort in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in combination with exemestane is approved for hormone receptor (HR) positive advanced breast cancer (ABC), after failure of treatment with non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). We assessed the toxicity of the combination and the correlation between dose intensity and response to therapy, in a real world population of ABC from 11 Italian centers. Moreover, we evaluated OS of the whole population, RR and PFS according to line of treatment (from 1rd to 3th and from 4th on). METHODS: 154 pts were treated with combination of everolimus 10 mg and exemestane 25 mg daily from 05/2011 today. Median age was 62 (47-82). Median time to metastatic disease was 49 months (0-269). Median number of metastatic sites was 2 (55.2% of pts visceral versus 44.8% non visceral disease). N=117 (75.9%) pretreated with HT as adjuvant; N=126 pts (81.8%) treated with HT for advanced disease prior to EVE/EXE, with a median of one line (0-5). N=102 pts (66.2%) treated with chemotherapy for metastatic disease, with a median of one line (0-6) before everolimus treatment. RESULTS: Sixteen pts received EVE/EXE as 1st line (10.4%), 39 as 2nd (25.3%), 37 as 3rd (24%), 62 as 4th or more (40,3%). Response was evaluable in 127 out of 154 pts; CR/PR/SD respectively 5/27/56 pts. RR according to line (from 1st to 3rd vs ≥ 4th) was respectively 22.8% vs 26.4% (p=0,864). The median PFS for all population (150 pts) was 38 weeks (95% CI: 33-42). The PFS according to line (1st- 3rd vs ≥ 4th) was 38 wks in both subgroups, p=0.73. OS (126/154 pts) was 28 mths (95% CI: 31-38). The most frequent adverse events were collected in the table. Adverse eventsOverall %Grade 3-4 %Stomatitis55.810.4Hypercholesterolemia47.40.0Asthenia42.95.2Hyperglycemia36.45.8Hypertriglyceridemia29.20.6Anemia28.63.9Peripheral edema24.71.3Rash23.40.6Increased ALT/AST/GGT21.46.5Thrombocytopenia19.53.9Diarrhea18.81.9Weight loss18.21.3Dysgeusia17.50.6Pneumonitis15.61.9Cutaneous toxicity14.90.6Infection14.33.2Neutropenia11.71.9Nausea11.70.0Anorexia (without stomatitis)10.41.3Electrolyte alterations9.71.3Urea/creatinine increase6.51.3Vomiting6.50.0Uric acid increase4.50.0 Median duration of treatment with everolimus 10 mg and 5 mg was respectively 180 (9-854) and 129 days (3-738). Fifty-eight pts (37,6%) never stopped treatment with everolimus 10 mg; 16 pts (10,4%) definitively stopped everolimus for toxicity; 80 pts (52,0%) temporarily interrupted the treatment, resuming at dose level 10 mg (31 pts) or reducing at 5 mg (49 pts). Main reason for discontinuation/interruption was stomatitis G2-G3. RR and PFS evaluated according to dose intensity, 10 mg vs 5 mg, were respectively 25.9% vs 30% p=0.779, 38 wks (27-44) vs 40 wks (31-48) P=0.614 CONCLUSIONS: efficacy in terms of RR and PFS of the combination EVE/EXE is not related to dose intensity (10 mg vs 5 mg), the discontinuation of the treatment is high with the starting dose of 10 mg, the toxicity is consistent with previous phase II-III studies although we collected some different toxicities. Citation Format: Forcignanò R, Petrucelli L, Cazzaniga ME, Lupo LI, Chiuri VE, Cairo G, De Matteis E, Febbraro A, Giordano G, Campidoglio S, Fabi A, Giampaglia M, Bilancia D, La Verde N, Maiello E, Morritti M, Giotta F, Lorusso V, Scavelli C, Romito S, Cusmai A, Palmiotti G, Tornesello A, Ciccarese M. Dose intensity and efficacy of the combination of everolimus and exemestane (EVE/EXE) in a real world population of hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: A multicenter Italian experience. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-13-15.

Aim: This retrospective analysis focused on the effect of treatment with EVE/EXE in a real-world population outside of clinical trials. We examined the efficacy of this combination in terms of PFS and RR related to dose intensity (5 mg daily versus 10 mg daily) and tolerability. Methods: 163 HER2-negative ER+/PgR+ ABC patients, treated with EVE/EXE from May 2011 to March 2016, were included in the analysis. The primary endpoints were the correlation between the daily dose and RR and PFS, as well as an evaluation of the tolerability of the combination. Secondary endpoints were RR, PFS, and OS according to the line of treatment. Patients were classified into three different groups, each with a different dose intensity of everolimus (A, B, C). Results: RR was 29.8% (A), 27.8% (B) (p = 0.953), and not evaluable (C). PFS was 9 months (95% CI 7–11) (A), 10 months (95% CI 9–11) (B), and 5 months (95% CI 2–8) (C), p = 0.956. OS was 38 months (95% CI 24–38) (A), median not reached (B), and 13 months (95% CI 10–25) (C), p = 0.002. Adverse events were stomatitis 57.7% (11.0% grade 3–4), asthenia 46.0% (6.1% grade 3–4), hypercholesterolemia 46.0% (0.6% grade 3–4), and hyperglycemia 35.6% (5.5% grade 3–4). The main reason for discontinuation/interruption was grade 2–3 stomatitis. Conclusions: No correlation was found between dose intensity (5 vs. 10 mg labeled dose) and efficacy in terms of RR and PFS. The tolerability of the higher dose was poor in our experience, although this had no impact on efficacy.