Search

The aim of adjuvant therapy in breast cancer is to reduce the risk of recurrence. Some patients develop metastases many years after apparently successful treatment of their primary cancer. Tumour dormancy may explain the long time between initial diagnosis and treatment of cancer, and occurrence of relapse. The regulation of the switch from clinical dormancy to cancer regrowth in locoregional and distant sites is poorly understood. In this review, we report some data supporting the existence of various factors that may explain cancer dormancy including genetic and epigenetic changes, angiogenic switch, microenvironment, and immunosurveillance. A better definition and understanding of these factors should allow the identification of patients at high risk of relapse and to develop new therapeutic strategies in order to improve prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Elderly patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, particularly in early-phase studies. Our study assessed the safety and efficacy of novel anti-cancer treatments investigated in early-phase clinical trials, comparing outcomes between younger and elderly patients., Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from patients enrolled in phase I/II trials at our center between January 2014 and April 2021. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, toxicity, and clinical efficacy, categorizing patients into younger (≤ 65 years) and elderly (> 65 years) groups., Results: 419 patients were included with a median age of 56 years. Among these, 107 (26 %) were older than 65 years. Predominant cancers included breast (48 %), lung (10 %), and melanoma (5 %). Patients were treated in 64 trials, predominantly receiving immunotherapy-based (47 %) or targeted therapy-based (45 %) treatment. Elderly presented with poorer ECOG performance status (P = 0.001) and had fewer prior therapy lines (P = 0.01) than younger patients. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were similar across age groups (31 % younger vs 33 % elderly; P = 0.7), including in combination therapy scenarios. However, elderly patients experienced more AEs with antibody-drug conjugates compared to younger counterparts (56 % vs 14 %, P = 0.036) and were more likely to discontinue treatment due to toxicity (15 % vs 7 %; P = 0.011). No significant age-related differences in response rates and survival outcomes were observed across treatment modalities, except for immunotherapy-based regimens for which elderly patients exhibited higher response rates, disease control rates, and prolonged progression-free survival., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that elderly exhibit comparable safety and efficacy outcomes to younger patients in early-phase clinical trials for new cancer drugs. This underscores the importance of including elderly patients in phase I/II trials to ensure the generalizability of study results and mitigate age-related disparities in cancer treatment access., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Disclosures: SM reports expenses reimbursement from Menarini/Stemline and AstraZeneca. PT discloses research funding (to institution) from AstraZeneca and consultancy/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis and Lilly. MC reports personal fees from Lilly, Sermonix, Data Genomics, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Celcuity, Iylon, and Ellipses and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, AZ and Menarini, all outside the submitted work. CC reports consultancy/advisory role/speaker bureau: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Gilead, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Seagen, all outside the submitted work. AM has received honoraria as a consultant, advisor or speaker from Roche and Menarini/Stemline, and has received support for accommodation and travel from AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. AE reports speaker bureau: Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, all outside the submitted work. GC reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Lilly, Pfizer, Relay, Gilead, Novartis; Consulting fees: BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck, Seagen, Ellipsis, Gilead, Menarini; Grants or contracts: Merck; Support for attending meetings and/or travel: Daichii Sankyo. Institutional research funding for conducting Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials: Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Celgene, Servier, Orion, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Tesaro, BMS, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp Dohme, Janssen-Cilag, Philogen, Bayer, Medivation, Medimmune. All outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest are reported., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune-related adverse events (IRAE) pose a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in patients treated with immune-oncology (IO) drugs. IRAEs have been suggested to correlate with better outcome, but studies are conflicting. Estimating the true incidence of IRAEs is particularly difficult in the early phase I/II trial setting. A key issue is the lack of IRAE diagnostic criteria, necessary to discriminate "pure" IRAEs from other treatment-related adverse events not sustained by an autoimmune process., Methods: In patients treated with immune-oncology (IO) drugs in phases I-II trials at our institute, we identified high confidence (HC) or low confidence (LC) IRAEs by clinical consensus. We empirically developed an IRAE likelihood score (ILS) based on commonly available clinical data. Correlation with outcome was explored by multivariate Cox analysis. To mitigate immortal time-bias, analyses were conducted (1) at 2-month landmark and (2) modeling IRAEs as time-dependent covariate., Results: Among 202 IO-treated patients, 29.2% developed >1 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE). Based on ILS >5, we classified patients in no IRAE (n = 143), HC IRAE (n = 24), or LC IRAE (n = 35). hazard ratios (HR) for HC were significantly lower than LC patients (HR for PFS ranging 0.24-0.44, for OS 0.18-0.23, all P < .01)., Conclusion: ILS provides a simple system to identify bona fide IRAEs, pruning for other treatment-related events likely due to different pathophysiology. Applying stringent criteria leads to lower and more reliable estimates of IRAE incidence and identifies events with significant impact on survival., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Baseline tumor size (BTS) has been associated with outcomes in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the prognostic impact of BTS on patients receiving targeted therapies (TTs) remains undetermined., Methods: We reviewed data of patients with advanced solid tumors consecutively treated within early-phase clinical trials at our institution from 01/2014 to 04/2021. Treatments were categorized as immunotherapy-based or TT-based (biomarker-matched or not). BTS was calculated as the sum of RECIST1.1 baseline target lesions., Results: A total of 444 patients were eligible; the median BTS was 69 mm (IQR 40-100). OS was significantly longer for patients with BTS lower versus higher than the median (16.6 vs. 8.2 months, P < .001), including among those receiving immunotherapy (12 vs. 7.5 months, P = .005). Among patients receiving TT, lower BTS was associated with longer PFS (4.7 vs. 3.1 months, P = .002) and OS (20.5 vs. 9.9 months, P < .001) as compared to high BTS. However, such association was only significant among patients receiving biomarker-matched TT, with longer PFS (6.2 vs. 3.3 months, P < .001) and OS (21.2 vs. 6.7 months, P < .001) in the low-BTS subgroup, despite a similar ORR (28% vs. 22%, P = .57). BTS was not prognostic among patients receiving unmatched TT, with similar PFS (3.7 vs. 4.4 months, P = .30), OS (19.3 vs. 11.8 months, P = .20), and ORR (33% vs. 28%, P = .78) in the 2 BTS groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed that BTS was independently associated with PFS (P = .03) and OS (P < .001) but not with ORR (P = .11)., Conclusions: Higher BTS is associated with worse survival outcomes among patients receiving biomarker-matched, but not biomarker-unmatched TT., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Breast cancer is a major cause of death among females. Great advances have been made in treating this disease, and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been recognized as the cornerstone. They are characterized by high efficacy and low toxicity. The authors reviewed the available literature and defined state-of-the-art AI management. This study was designed to assist clinicians in addressing the need to equally weigh patients' needs and disease control rates in their everyday clinical practice. Today, AIs play a central role in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. In this study, an expert panel reviewed the literature on the use of AIs, discussing the evolution of their use in various aspects of breast cancer, from pre- and postmenopausal early breast cancer to metastatic breast cancer, along with their management regarding efficacy and toxicity. Given the brilliant results that have been achieved in improving survival in everyday clinical practice, clinicians need to address their concerns about therapy duration and the adverse effects they exert on bone health, the cardiovascular system, and metabolism. Currently, in addition to cancer treatment, patient engagement is crucial for improving adherence to therapy and supporting patients' quality of life, especially in a selected subset of patients, such as those receiving an extended adjuvant or combination with targeted therapies. A description of modern technologies that contribute to this important goal is provided., Competing Interests: DG declares grants and/or presentations at congresses and/or participation in scientific boards organized by Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Istituto Gentili, Accord, Roche. RB declares grants and/or presentations at congresses and/or participation in scientific boards organized by AZ, BI, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Lilly, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Eisai. OG declares advisory role for Eisai, MSD, Seagen, Gilead and honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Eli-Lilly IP has received grants for presentations at congresses and participation in scientific boards from: Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Gentili, Seagen, Eisai, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, Pierre Fabre. SP has received personal fees presentations at congresses and/or participation in scientific boards/speaker/meetings from Novartis, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Eisai, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead. 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 Generali, Berardi, Caruso, Cazzaniga, Garrone, Minchella, Paris, Pinto and De Placido.)

The impact of nutritional patterns on the risk of breast cancer (BC) is well investigated in the oncology literature, including the type of diets and caloric intake. While obesity and elevated body mass index are well-reported critical risk factors of BC occurrence, there is an expanding area of oncology assessing the impact of caloric intake and nutritional patterns in patients with cancer. Caloric restriction and fast mimicking alimentary regimens have been consistently reported to improve survival outcomes based on preclinical models. Moreover, emerging clinical evidence has paved the way for new metabolic approaches for the treatment of BC, in addition to the established therapeutic arsenal or as alternative options. In this chapter, our aim is to discuss the principal strategies of metabolic manipulation through nutritional interventions for patients with BC as an innovative area of cancer therapy., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines did not include cancer patients, with questions remaining about their safety and efficacy in this population. Patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials receive novel treatments with unknown efficacy and safety profiles. Studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in these patients are urgently required. This is a retrospective, real-world, cohort study of patients receiving anticancer treatments and COVID-19 vaccines between 1 February and 25 June 2021 at the Division of New Drugs Development for Innovative Therapies of the European Institute of Oncology. One hundred thirteen patients were enrolled, 40 in early-phase clinical trials, and 20 under novel immunotherapy agents. Nearly three-quarters of the patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE) after the first dose (1D) (74.3%) and second dose (2D) (72.6%). Most of the AEs were local (67.3% 1D and 61.9% after 2D), while 31.8% (1D) and 38.1% (2D) of the patients had systemic AEs. No AEs above grade 2 were observed. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, including patients receiving novel immunotherapy compounds. All cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of ongoing treatments or enrollment in early-phase trials.

Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) remains the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the most common cause of cancer death among women of all races worldwide. Over 80% of BC cases are hormone receptor (HR)-positive, comprised of luminal A and luminal B per molecular subtypes, imposing an urgent need to fully understand the mechanisms behind progression. Ribociclib is a selective cycline-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor. A phase 1 and a phase 3 trial have established a definitive role of ribociclib as frontline in the treatment of endocrine-sensitive advanced BC. Areas covered: Herein, the authors provide an overview of the data on ribociclib covering all aspects of the drug from its pharmacokinetics to efficacy and safety. The authors also provide their perspectives for the future. Expert opinion: Ribociclib is offering an opportunity to explore a new compound at the crossroads of different molecular activity and cell targets, which focus on endocrine-resistance reversal in multiple settings including early BC. Moreover, its activity against different subtypes of BC is being studied as is its immune-modulating effect. One cautionary note is that, in a market of concomitant similar competitors, a financial discussion will be mandatory.

Introduction: Breast cancer accounts for 29% of malignant tumors. It is an heterogenous disease covering a spectrum of different molecular subtypes. Epigenetic aberrations may affect gene expression through DNA and histone proteins modifications thus promoting tumor progression and resistance to anti- tumor treatment. Area covered: This article explores the potential role of entinostat in the treatment of breast cancer. The clinical trials evaluating entinostat are discussed, highlighting preclinical data and early-phase clinical studies results. The emerging activity of entinostat in several clinical settings is evaluated by focusing on endocrine-resistant, HER2 positive and triple-negative breast cancer with promising activity in boosting the immune-system. Expert opinion: Entinostat, a synthetic benzamide derivative class I histone deacetylases (HDACs) inhibitor, inhibits cell proliferation and promotes apoptosis in breast cancer. Several results from clinical trials demonstrate that the addition of an epigenetic therapy to antiestrogen therapy may be an effective approach to targeting resistance pathways in breast cancer, particularly in hormone-positive disease. Agents such as entinostat may have a role in immunogenic modulation. Genetic and pharmacological inhibition studies identified HDAC as a key determinant in the reversal of carcinoma immune escape. This offers the rationale for combining HDAC inhibitors with immunotherapy, including therapeutic cancer vaccines.

Is breast cancer (BC) immunogenic? Many data suggest that it is. Many observations demonstrated the prognostic role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in triple negative (TN) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)-positive BC. TNBCs are poorly differentiated tumors with high genetic instability and very high heterogeneity. This heterogeneity enhances the 'danger signals' and select clone variants that could be more antigenic or, in other words, that could more strongly stimulate a host immune antitumor response. The response to chemotherapy is at least partly dependent on an immunological reaction against those tumor cells that are dying during the chemotherapy. One of the mechanisms whereby chemotherapy can stimulate the immune system to recognize and destroy malignant cells is commonly known as immunogenic cell death (ICD). ICD elicits an adaptive immune response. Which are the clinical implications of all 'immunome' data produced in the last years? First, validate prognostic or predictive role of TILs. Second, validate immune genomic signatures that may be predictive and prognostic in patients with TN disease. Third, incorporate an 'immunoscore' into traditional classification of BC, thus providing an essential prognostic and potentially predictive tool in the pathology report. Fourth, implement clinical trials for BC in the metastatic setting with drugs that target immune-cell-intrinsic checkpoints. Blockade of one of these checkpoints, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) or the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor may provide proof of concepts for the activity of an immune-modulation approach in the treatment of a BC.