Search

Luigi Rossi, Foteini Vakiarou, Federica Zoratto, Loredana Bianchi, Anselmo Papa, Enrico Basso, Monica Verrico, Giuseppe Lo Russo, Salvatore Evangelista, Guilia Rinaldi, Francesca Perrone-Congedi, Gian Paolo Spinelli, Valeria Stati, Davide Caruso, Alessandra Prete, Silverio TomaoDepartment of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy; Oncology Unit, ICOT, Latina, ItalyAbstract: Management of metastatic colorectal cancer requires a multimodal approach and must be performed by an experienced, multidisciplinary expert team. The optimal choice of the individual treatment modality, according to disease localization and extent, tumor biology, and patient clinical characteristics, will be one that can maintain quality of life and long-term survival, and even cure selected patients. This review is an overview of the different therapeutic approaches available in metastatic colorectal cancer, for the purpose of defining personalized therapeutic algorithms according to tumor biology and patient clinical features.Keywords: metastatic colorectal cancer, patient clinical features, tumor biology, multidisciplinary approach

Evelina Miele,1,* Gian Paolo Spinelli,2,* Ermanno Miele,3 Enzo Di Fabrizio,3,6 Elisabetta Ferretti,4 Silverio Tomao,2 Alberto Gulino,1,5 1Department of Molecular Medicine, 2Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 3Nanostructures, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, via Morego, 30, 16163 Genova, 4Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 5Center for Life Nanoscience, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rome, Italy, 6BIONEM lab, University of Magna Graecia, Campus S. Venuta, Viale Europa 88100 Catanzaro, Italy *These authors contributed equally to this workAbstract: During recent decades there have been remarkable advances and profound changes in cancer therapy. Many therapeutic strategies learned at the bench, including monoclonal antibodies and small molecule inhibitors, have been used at the bedside, leading to important successes. One of the most important advances in biology has been the discovery that small interfering RNA (siRNA) is able to regulate the expression of genes, by a phenomenon known as RNA interference (RNAi). RNAi is one of the most rapidly growing fields of research in biology and therapeutics. Much research effort has gone into the application of this new discovery in the treatment of various diseases, including cancer. However, even though these molecules may have potential and strong utility, some limitations make their clinical application difficult, including delivery problems, side effects due to off-target actions, disturbance of physiological functions of the cellular machinery involved in gene silencing, and induction of the innate immune response. Many researchers have attempted to overcome these limitations and to improve the safety of potential RNAi-based therapeutics. Nanoparticles, which are nanostructured entities with tunable size, shape, and surface, as well as biological behavior, provide an ideal opportunity to modify current treatment regimens in a substantial way. These nanoparticles could be designed to surmount one or more of the barriers encountered by siRNA. Nanoparticle drug formulations afford the chance to improve drug bioavailability, exploiting superior tissue permeability, payload protection, and the “stealth” features of these entities. The main aims of this review are: to explain the siRNA mechanism with regard to potential applications in siRNA-based cancer therapy; to discuss the possible usefulness of nanoparticle-based delivery of certain molecules for overcoming present therapeutic limitations; to review the ongoing relevant clinical research with its pitfalls and promises; and to evaluate critically future perspectives and challenges in siRNA-based cancer therapy.Keywords: small interfering RNA, nanoparticles, cancer therapy, delivery strategies, biological barriers, clinical trials

The most favourable therapeutic strategy for gastric MALT-lymphoma not responding to Helicobacter pylori eradication still remains unclear, neither official guidelines nor randomised studies being available. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy of different therapeutic approaches in these patients. Data regarding 315 patients were valuable, and lymphoma remission following the first therapeutic attempt was achieved in 90.1% cases. The most used therapy was radiotherapy (112 patients), followed by surgery (80 patients) and chemotherapy (68 patients), whilst a combination therapy was less frequent. Radiotherapy achieved a higher remission rate as compared to chemotherapy (97.3 vs. 85.3%; P = 0.007), being similar to surgery (97.3 vs. 92.5%; P = 0.2). No difference emerged when comparing lymphoma remission rate achieved by a single therapy with that of combined treatments (89.6 vs. 96.4%; P = 0.6). This is the first pooled-data analysis assessing the efficacy of different oncologic therapeutic approaches to treat gastric MALT-lymphoma unresponsive to H. pylori eradication. Radiotherapy seems to be the most suitable treatment in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) has been approved for the treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the pivotal clinical trials did not include patients previously treated with avelumab maintenance therapy., Objective: The aim of the present retrospective analysis was to assess the effectiveness of EV following avelumab in patients with mUC enrolled in the ARON-2 EV study., Patients and Methods: The study included 182 patients with mUC treated with EV following avelumab maintenance. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DoR). Statistical analysis involved Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models., Results: Median OS and PFS were 12.7 (95% CI 10.2-14.1) and 7.9 (95% CI 6.4-9.9) months, respectively. Complete response (CR) was achieved in 5% and partial response (PR) in 34% of patients, with an ORR of 39%. The DoR in patients who achieved CR/PR was 10.9 months (95% CI 8.1-11.4). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy and skin rash was 9%, followed by 8% of grade ≥ 3 diarrhea and 4% of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycemia., Conclusions: The results of our large international retrospective study confirm the effectiveness of EV and endorse its use in the population of patients with mUC treated with EV following the frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and subsequent maintenance treatment with avelumab., Competing Interests: Declarations Funding No external funding was used in the preparation of this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest Ondřej Fiala received honoraria from Roche, Janssen, GSK, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project. Francesco Massari has received research support and/or honoraria from Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Umberto Basso received honoraria for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Astra Zeneca; research funding from Ipsen; and travel grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, Merck/Pfizer, and Bayer, all unrelated to this project. Sebastiano Buti received honoraria as speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Merck, Gentili, and Astellas, all unrelated to the present paper. Yüksel Ürün has served on advisory board for Abdi-İbrahim, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Deva, Eczacıbaşı, Gen ilaç, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and received travel grants, honoraria, or consultation fees from Abdi-İbrahim, Astellas, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Deva, Eczacıbaşı, Gen İlaç, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, all unrelated to the present paper. Maria T. Bourlon is a consultant of Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Gilead, Astellas, and Asofarma and a speaker for Janssen Pharmaceuticasl, MSD, Merck, and Astellas, all unrelated to the present paper. Mimma Rizzo has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant by MSD, Merck Serono, Astrazeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Gilead, all unrelated to the present paper. Linda Cerbone has received honoraria for advisory boards, speaker engagements, and scientific consultancy for educational purposes from AstraZeneca, EISAI, MSD, Ipsen, BMS, and A.A.A.; and is a past MSD employee in Medical Affairs. Javier Molina-Cerrillo reports research funding from Roche, Ipsen, Pfizer, and Janssen; travel support from Pfizer, Janssen, Ipsen, and BMS; and a consulting or advisory role with Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Eisai, Adium, and MSD, all unrelated to the present paper. Álvaro Pinto is a member of advisory boards of Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS, Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, Bayer, Clovis, Roche, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Merck; has received research support from Pfizer and BMS; clinical trial payments from Pfizer, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Clovis, Pharmacyclics, BMS, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Eisai, and Aveo; and travel arrangements from Janssen, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, and Ipsen, all unrelated to the present paper. Andrey Soares reports honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen, and Adium; consulting or advisory role from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adium, Ipsen, Pfizer, and Novartis; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Astellas (Inst), and AstraZeneca (Inst); travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, Adium, MSD, and Merck Serono; and ownership in BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology; all unrelated to this study. Alexandr Poprach has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Ipsen, Roche, Astellas, Merck, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, unrelated to this project. Gian Paolo Spinelli has received payment or honoraria for advidory boards from Novartis, Roche, and Bayer, unrelated to this project. Martin Angel received honoraria from Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Raffo, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project. Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro reports research support provided by Merck Sharp Dome; honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome; and ownership in BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology, all unrelated to this study. Camillo Porta acted as a remunerated consultant and/or speaker for Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMC, Eisai, Exilixis, Genenta, Ipsen, Merck Serono, and MSD; as a protocol steering committee member for Eisai and MSD; and as an Independent Review Board member for Genenta. Shilpa Gupta is a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Gilead, Bayer, and Seattle Genetics; is a speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb; and has institutional research funding from Seatte Genetics, Pfizer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, and Tyra Biosciences. Matteo Santoni has received research support and honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas, and Bayer, all unrelated to the present paper. Patrizia Giannatempo, Enrique Grande, Zin W. Myint, Ugo De Giorgi, Renate Pichler, Francesco Grillone, Fabio Calabrò, Luca Galli, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Giandomenico Roviello, Jakub Kucharz, Se Hoon Park, Emmanuel Seront, Carlo Messina, Daniele Santini, Akihiro Yano, Lorena Incorvaia, Martina Catalano, Luigi Formisano, Gaetano Facchini, Giuseppe Fornarini, Sara Elena Rebuzzi, Cecilia Nasso, Marco Stellato, Deniz Tural, Gaetano Aurilio, Ilana Epstein, Francesco Carrozza, Giovanni Benedetti, Tomáš Büchler, Cinzia Ortega, Roubini Zakopoulou, Nicola Battelli, and Joaquin Bellmunt declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript. Tomáš Büchler and Camillo Porta are Editorial Board members of Targeted Oncology. Tomáš Büchler and Camillo Porta were not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions. Ethics Approval The study protocol was approved on 28 September 2023, by the Ethical Committee of the coordinating center (Marche Region – Italy – no. 2022 39/7875, Study Protocol “ARON 2 Study” NCT05290038) and by the Institutional Review Boards of participating centers. Consent to Participate Informed consent with subsequent analysis of the follow-up data was obtained from all participants. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Availability of Data and Material The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to patient data security but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Code Availability Not applicable. Author Contributions Study concept and design: all authors; acquisition of data: all authors; analysis and interpretation of data: all authors; drafting of the manuscript: Fiala, Massari, Gupta, and Santoni; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors; statistical analysis: Santoni; obtaining funding: none; administrative, technical, or material support: none; and supervision: Gupta and Santoni., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: In the TOPAZ-1, patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) and recurrence within 6 months after surgery were excluded, even if this event is frequently observed in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess if the efficacy of cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab (CGD) in this population is comparable to that reported in the phase 3 trial., Methods: The study cohort included patients with BTC who underwent surgery on the primary tumor, experienced disease recurrence occurring ≤6 months or >6 months after surgery or after the end of adjuvant therapy and started CGD. The primary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)., Results: A total of 178 patients were enrolled. No significant differences were observed between early and late relapse groups in OS (23.4 months vs not reached; HR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.67-2.37; P = .45) and PFS [7.0 months vs 9.8 months; HR 1.3(95% CI, 0.9-2.1) P = .13]. Overall response rate and disease control rate (P = .33 and P = .62) were comparable between the 2 groups, as the overall safety profile. In addition, we compared survival outcomes between the selected population and a historical cohort of patients with BTC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG) and found that despite the absence of statistical significance, CGD showed an outcome trend compared with CG regardless of the time of recurrence after surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy [(CG ≤ 6 vs CGD ≤ 6 months: HR 0.59, 95%CI, 0.35-1.01, P = .05; HR 0.70; 95%CI, 0.46-1.06, P = .09, OS and PFS, respectively) and (CG > 6 vs. CGD > 6 months: HR 0.50; 95%CI, 0.29-0.88, P = 0.0165; HR 0.54; 95%CI, 0.35-0.84, P = .0068, OS and PFS, respectively)]., Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that CGD retains its efficacy independently of the timing of relapse after surgery or completion of adjuvant treatment in patients with advanced BTC., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) abiraterone acetate (AA) enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the standard first-line (L1) treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and docetaxel (D) is reserved as second-line (L2) after ARSI failure. Nonetheless, D use in men ≥ 75 years old is restricted owing to treatment toxicities and patient comorbidities, and a L2 alternative ARSI is frequently used. We aimed to evaluate real-life survival and toxicity outcomes of these elderly patients after failure of L1 ARSI treatment., Material and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated efficacy and safety in a real-world international cohort of consecutive patients ≥ 75 years old when starting L1 ARSI for mCRPC according to the choice of L2 treatment (D versus alternative ARSI)., Results: Of the 122 identified patients, 57 (46.7%) had received L2 ARSI and 65 (53.3%) L2 D. No difference was found in the L1 overall survival (OS) for the ARSI and D groups (32.8 vs. 30.0 months, respectively; Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.77-1.95; P = .40) or in the L2 OS (18.5 vs. 17.8 months, respectively; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.69-1.74; P = .71). No difference was observed for rPFS from L2 (P = .12), although a trend was observed for a numerically improved rPFS on D., Conclusion: Within the limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our study suggests that D or ARSI after failure of L1 alternative ARSI are clinically comparable L2 options for elderly patients with mCRPC., Competing Interests: Disclosure Loana Bueno Valencia received consulting fees from Janssen and travel grants from Janssen, Astellas, and Bayer. The other authors report no competing interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Managing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men aged ≥ 75 is challenging due to limited data. Regardless of age, in real-world clinical practice, most mCRPC still derive from failure of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel (D) for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) and enzalutamide (Enza) are common first-line treatments for mCRPC. The impact of prior use of D for mCSPC on the efficacy and safety of AA or Enza in this older population remains unclear., Methods: A cohort of patients aged ≥ 75 years starting AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC from January 2015 to April 2019 was identified from the registries of 10 institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on previous use of D for mCSPC. Primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS) from AA or Enza start, CSS from ADT onset, and safety. We used Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the endpoints distribution, including median values with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)., Results: Of the 337 patients identified, 24 (7.1%) received ADT+D and 313 (92.9%) received ADT alone for mCSPC. Median follow-up from AA/Enza start was 18.8 months. Median CSS from ADT or AA/Enza was not significantly different between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts (71.9 vs. 52.7 months, P = .97; 25.4 vs. 27.2 months, P = .89, respectively). No statistically significant difference in adverse events (AEs) of any grade rate (58.3% vs. 52.1%, respectively; P = .67) or grade ≥ 3 (12.5% vs. 15.7%, respectively; P = 1.0) was found between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts., Conclusions: Despite the innate limitations of a retrospective design and relatively small size of the ADT+D cohort, this analysis suggests that elderly men receiving AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC have similar survival outcomes and tolerability, regardless of previous D for mCSPC., Competing Interests: Disclosure Loana Valenca received consulting fees from Janssen and travel grants from Janssen, Astellas, and Bayer. The other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). To understand this combination's real-world efficacy and tolerability, we conducted a global multicenter retrospective analysis of its first-line treatment outcomes., Methods: We included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin at 39 sites in 11 countries (Europe, the United States, and Asia). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: 666 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 15.1 months and median PFS was 8.2 months. The investigator-assessed overall response rate was 32.7 %, with stable disease in 45.2 % of patients. High baseline CEA levels, ECOG PS > 0, metastatic disease, and NLR > 3 were associated with poor survival. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92.9 % of patients (grade >2: 46.6 %). Immune-related AEs (irAEs) occurred in 20.0 % (grade >2: 2.5 %). Three deaths (0.5 %) were deemed treatment-related, none linked to immunotherapy. Common irAEs were rash (8.2 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2), itching (10.3 % all grades; 0.2 % grade >2), and hypothyroidism (5.1 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2). Durvalumab discontinuation rate due to AEs was 1.5 %. ESMO-recommended genes were analyzed and no outcome differences were found. A comparative analysis with a historical cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy alone confirmed the positive survival impact of durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine., Conclusion: This first global real-world analysis largely confirmed the TOPAZ-1 findings, supporting gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab as a first-line standard of care for patients with advanced BTC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LR reports consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Zymeworks. ACG reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, MSD, Roche, Servier; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from AstraZeneca, Eisai. SLC serves an advisory member for AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, BMS, Ipsen, and Hengrui, received research funds from MSD, Eisai, Ipsen, SIRTEX, and Zailab, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche, Ipsen, and MSD. TP received consulting fees from Bayer, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; institutional research funding from Roche, Bayer, and AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Roche. CB received honoraria as speaker (Astrazeneca, Incyte, Servier) and consultant (Incyte, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astrazeneca), received research funds (Avacta, Medannex, Servier) and her spouse is an employee of Astrazeneca. M. Ikeda reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Incyte, Lilly Japan, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Teijin Pharma, Nihon Servier, Taiho and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiome Bioscience, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Delta-Fly Pharma, Invitae, J-Pharma, Merck biopharma, Merus N.V., MSD, Novartis, Nihon Servier, Ono, Syneos Health, and Rakuten Medical. GWP: Advisories and/or Speaker fees: Servier, Bayer, Roche Amgen, Merck, MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Incyte, Arcus, CECOG. F. F. has received travel support from Ipsen, Abbvie, Astrazeneca and speaker’s fees from AbbVie, MSD, Ipsen, Astrazeneca. LP: Advisory role: AstraZeneca, Servier, Travel expenses: AstraZeneca, Ipsen. GG: Consulting Fees: Astra Zeneca, MSD, Servier, Seagen, Bayer, Amgen, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS. Travel Expenses: Astra Zeneca, Servier, Bayer, Novartis. S.L. reports research funding (to Institution) from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Servier; personal honoraria as invited speaker from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Servier; participation in advisory board for Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Takeda, Rottapharm. JD received consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Need Inc., Ipsen, Lilly, MediMix, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Servier. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) carrying sarcomatoid features (sRCC) has aggressive biology and poor prognosis. First-line immunotherapy (IO)-based combinations have improved the outcome of clear cell RCC patients, including that of sRCC. Real-world data confirming the adequate first-line management of sRCC is largely lacking. We investigated the clinical features and the outcome of sRCC patients treated with IO-based combinations within the ARON-1 study population (NCT05287464). The primary objective was to define the incidence and baseline clinical characteristics of sRCC compared with non-sRCC patients. The secondary objective was to describe the outcome of sRCC patients based on type of first-line treatment (IO + IO vs. IO + tyrosin kinase inhibitor [TKI]). We identified 1362 mRCC patients with IMDC intermediate or poor risk, 226 sRCC and 1136 non-sRCC. These two subgroups did not differ in terms of baseline characteristics. The median overall survival (OS) was 26.8 months (95%CI 21.6-44.2) in sRCC and 35.3 months (95%CI 30.2-40.4) in non-sRCC patients (p = .013). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in non-sRCC patients compared to sRCC (14.5 vs. 12.3 months, p = .064). In patients treated with first-line IO + TKI the median OS was 34.4 months compared to 26.4 months of those who received IO + IO (p = .729). The median PFS was 12.4 months with IO + TKI and 12.3 months with IO + IO (p = .606). In conclusion, we confirm that sRCC are aggressive tumors with poor prognosis. IO-based combinations improve survival outcomes of sRCC patients, regardless from the type of strategy (IO + IO versus IO + TKI) adopted., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

The addition of metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) to immunotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has shown promising results. We report the real-world data from the ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) on the impact of conventional (CRT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) on the outcome of aUC patients receiving pembrolizumab after platinum-based-chemotherapy. Medical records of 837 patients were reviewed from 60 institutions in 20 countries. Two hundred and sixty-two patients (31%) received radiotherapy (cohort A), of whom 193 (23%) received CRT and 69 (8%) received SBRT. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to explore the association of variables of interest with OS and PFS. With a median follow-up of 22.7 months, the median OS was 10.2 months, 6.8 months and 16.0 months in no RT, CRT and SBRT subgroups (p = 0.005), with an 1y-OS rates of 47%, 34% and 61%, respectively (p < 0.001). The 1y-OS rate in the SBRT subgroup were significantly higher for both lower (63%) and upper tract UC (68%), for pure urothelial histology (63%) and variant histologies (58%), and for patients with bone (40%) and lymph-node metastases (61%). Median PFS was 4.8 months, 9.6 months and 5.8 months in the CRT, SBRT and no RT subgroups, respectively (p = 0.060). The 1y-PFS rate was significantly higher (48%) in the SBRT population and was confirmed in all patient subsets. The difference in terms of ORR was in favour of SBRT. Our real-world analysis showed that the use of SBRT/pembrolizumab combination may play a role in a subset of aUC patients to increase disease control and possibly overall survival., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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’.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment of different advanced solid tumors, but most patients develop severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Although a bi-directional crosstalk between bone and immune systems is widely described, the effect of ICIs on the skeleton is poorly investigated. Here, we analyze the changes in plasma levels of type I collagen C-terminal telopeptide (CTX-I) and N -terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP), reference makers of bone turnover, in patients treated with ICIs and their association with clinical outcome. A series of 44 patients affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer or renal cell carcinoma, without bone metastases, and treated with ICIs as monotherapy were enrolled. CTX-I and PINP plasma levels were assessed at baseline and after 3 months of ICIs treatment by ELISA kits. A significant increase of CTX-I with a concomitant decreasing trend towards the reduction of PINP was observed after 3 months of treatment. Intriguingly, CTX-I increase was associated with poor prognosis in terms of treatment response and survival. These data suggest a direct relationship between ICIs treatment, increased osteoclast activity and potential fracture risk. Overall, this study reveals that ICIs may act as triggers for skeletal events, and if confirmed in larger prospective studies, it would identify a new class of skeletal-related irAEs., Competing Interests: 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., (© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Purpose: Anticancer treatment-related toxicities can impact morbidity and mortality, hamper the administration of treatment, worsen the quality of life and increase the burden on the healthcare system. Therefore, their prompt identification is crucial. NICSO (Italian Network for Supportive Care in Cancer) conducted a nationwide randomized trial to evaluate the role of a planned, weekly phone-based nurse monitoring intervention to prevent and treat chemotherapy, targeted therapy- and immunotherapy-related toxicities. Here, we report the results from the chemotherapy arm., Methods: This was a nationwide, randomized, open-label trial conducted among 29 Italian centers (NCT04726020) involving adult patients with breast, colon, or lung cancer and a life expectancy ≥6 months receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received either a weekly nurse monitoring phone call and an educational leaflet reporting practical advice about prevention and treatment of toxicities (experimental group) or the educational leaflet only (control group)., Results: The addition of a nurse monitoring intervention may help reduce time spent with severe toxicities (grade ≥3), particularly those less frequently reported in clinical practice, such as fatigue. When considering grade 1-2 AEs, times with mild/moderate diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue and pain were shorter in the experimental arm. Time spent without AEs was significantly longer in the experimental arms for all the toxicities. The requirement for special medical attention was comparable between groups., Conclusion: This study suggests the need for implementing a better system of toxicity assessment and management for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy to promote effective preventive and/or therapeutic intervention against these events., 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 Antonuzzo, Ripamonti, Roila, Sbrana, Galli, Miccinesi, Sammarco, Berruti, Coletta, Velutti, Fabi, Corsi, Mariani, Di Pede, Spinelli, Santini, Zustovich, Gunnellini, Rossi, Giordano, Di Maio, Numico and Bossi.)

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death. NSCLC accounts for 80-90% of cases. In young patients, adenocarcinoma is the most frequent histotype and 3-7% expresses the rearrangement of ALK oncogene, sensitive to TKIs. Crizotinib is the first ALK inhibitor approved by the FDA., Case: We present a case of a 17-year-old male with metastatic treatment-naïve ALK-positive adenocarcinoma. He was treated with crizotinib and obtained a prolonged response with PFS of 33 months., Conclusion: Crizotinib can be extremely effective in adolescents with treatment-naïve ALK-positive NSCLC but fail to prevent a central nervous system relapse. Resistance mechanisms need to be investigated., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Skin toxicity in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is well known. However, ad hoc ESMO guidelines have only recently been published., Aim and Methods: To describe the management (pre-emptive or reactive) of anti-EGFR-related cutaneous adverse events (AEs), in a real-life clinical context, in a selected population of patients with left-sided, metastatic RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (i.e., panitumumab or cetuximab) as first-line regimen at 22 Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were treatment-related adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of 515 patients included in the analysis, 173 (33.6%) received a pre-emptive and 342 (66.4%) a reactive treatment. The median follow-up period for the overall population was 30.0 months. A significantly lower incidence of any grade acneiform rash was found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort both in the overall population (78.6% vs 94.4%, p < 0.001) and in patients treated with panitumumab (76.1% vs 93.7%, p < 0.001) or cetuximab (83.3% vs 95.4%, p = 0.004), respectively. A lower incidence of any grade (41.6% vs 50.9%, p = 0.047) but a higher incidence of G3-G4 (9.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.042) paronychia/nail disorders were found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort. Nevertheless, a lower rate of patients within the reactive compared to the pre-emptive cohort was referred to dermatological counseling (21.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, p = 0.001). A higher rate of anti-EGFR therapy modification was needed in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort (35.9% vs 41.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). The pre-emptive approach did not reduce the efficacy of antineoplastic therapy compared to the reactive in terms of ORR (69.2% vs 72.8%), median PFS (12.3 vs 13.0 months), and median OS (28.8 vs 33.5 months)., Conclusion: Although recommended by international guidelines, the pre-emptive approach of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in mCRC patients still appears less adopted in daily clinical practice, compared to the reactive one. A wider reception and application of this indication is desirable to improve patients' quality of life without compromising the continuity and efficacy of antineoplastic therapy., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Doublets plus antiepidermal growth factor receptors monoclonal antibodies (EGFRi) are widely considered the preferable first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), resulting superior in terms of activity and efficacy compared to doublets plus bevacizumab. However, data comparing doublet plus EGFRi and triplet plus bevacizumab are lacking, and the relative benefit of an intensive regimen plus an antiangiogenic backbone in this population is debated., Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude to triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi as first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in clinical practice at 22 Oncology Units from March 2012 to October 2020. A random case-control matching was performed to compare activity (ORR), and effectiveness (PFS, OS, secondary resection rate of metastases with curative intent) between triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi, on the basis of ECOG-PS, age, gender, and burden of disease., Results: A total of 718 patients were consecutively treated with doublet-EGFRi (686, 95.5%) or triplet-bevacizumab (32, 4.5%). After case-control matching, median PFS was 13.6 (95% CI, 8.9-31.7) and 16.1 (95% CI, 12.1-36.8) months (P= .621), while median OS was 30.2 (95% CI, 14.4-69.5) and 38.1 (95% CI, 33.1-101.1) months (P= .0283) in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. The ORR was 65.6% and 90.6% (P= .016), while the secondary resection rate was 18.8% and 46.9% (P= .016), in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. Triplet-bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of G3/G4 neutropenia (25.0% vs. 12.5%, P= .041)., Conclusion: Although a doublet-EGFRi remains the recommended upfront regimen in patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, our real life data suggest a triplet-bevacizumab might be at least equally active and effective in properly selected cases., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few data regarding post-induction management following first-line anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based doublet regimens in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available., Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude, and the safety and effectiveness of post-induction strategies in consecutive patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen, who did not experience disease progression within 6 months from induction initiation, at 21 Italian and 1 Spanish Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and objective response rate (ORR)., Results: At the data cutoff, among 686 consecutive patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen from March 2012 to October 2020, 355 eligible patients have been included in the present analysis. Among these, 118 (33.2%), 66 (18.6%), and 11 (3.1%) received a maintenance with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FU/LV)+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, and 5FU/LV, respectively, while 160 (45.1%) patients continued induction treatment (non-maintenance) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient decision, or completion of planned treatment. The median period of follow-up for the overall population was 33.7 months (95%CI = 28.9-35.6). The median PFS values of the 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, 5FU/LV, and non-maintenance cohorts were 16.0 (95%CI = 14.3-17.7, 86 events), 13.0 (95%CI = 11.4-14.5, 56 events), 14.0 (95%CI = 8.1-20.0, 8 events), and 10.1 months (95%CI = 9.0-11.2, 136 events), respectively ( p < 0.001). The median OS values were 39.6 (95%CI = 31.5-47.7, 43 events), 36.1 (95%CI = 31.6-40.7, 36 events), 39.5 (95%CI = 28.2-50.8, 4 events), and 25.1 months (95%CI = 22.6-27.6, 99 events), respectively ( p < 0.001). After adjusting for key covariates, a statistically significant improvement in PFS in favor of 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.44-0.77, p < 0.001) and anti-EGFR (HR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.51-0.98, p = 0.039) compared to the non-maintenance cohort was found. Compared to the non-maintenance cohort, OS was improved by 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38-0.81, p = 0.002) and, with marginal significance, by anti-EGFR (HR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.51-0.98, p = 0.051). No difference was found in ORR. Any grade non-hematological and hematological events were generally higher in the non-maintenance compared to the maintenance cohorts., Conclusion: Among the treatment strategies following an anti-EGFR-based doublet first-line induction regimen in patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in a "real-life" setting, 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR resulted the most adopted, effective, and relatively safe regimen., Competing Interests: AlP reported receiving advisory board fees from GSK. AC reported receiving consulting/advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, and BMS and speakers’ fee from Novartis, Astellas, MSD, and AstraZeneca. AnP reported receiving fees from Eli-Lilly, MSD, and Servier. RG reported receiving fees from Amgen and Servier and advisory board fees from Amgen, Servier, Bayer, and Merck-Serono. 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 © 2021 Parisi, Cortellini, Venditti, Filippi, Salvatore, Tortora, Ghidini, Nigro, Gelsomino, Zurlo, Fulgenzi, Lombardi, Roselló Keränen, Depetris, Giampieri, Morelli, Di Marino, Di Pietro, Zanaletti, Vitale, Garajova, Spinelli, Zoratto, Roberto, Petrillo, Aimar, Patruno, D’Orazio, Ficorella, Ferri and Porzio.)

Introduction: Gemcitabine is a nucleoside analog and pyrimidine antimetabolite that inhibits RNA synthesis, currently approved for use to treat a variety of cancers, among which ovarian cancers. Gemcitabine is considered relatively safe and it is generally well tolerated, with rarely reported cardiac side effects., Case Report: We report a case of gemcitabine induced dilated cardiomyopathy in a 41-year-old woman receiving gemcitabine as second line treatment for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer without pre-existing hypertension or significant cardiac history. Management and Outcome: The patient presented with clinical symptoms and laboratory and imaging results suggestive of congestive cardiac failure, with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 15%. Gemcitabine administration was stopped and Furosemide with ACE-inhibitors and Beta-blocker agents were initiated. At that point the clinical situation improved: symptoms and findings disappeared with gemcitabine cessation., Discussion: Our case demonstrated for the first time objective evidence for dilated cardiomyopathy induced by gemcitabine in a young patient with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer without pre-existing significant cardiac history. Although rare, gemcitabine-induced cardiotoxicity should be promptly recognized in order to take appropriate measures to manage it.

Background: We previously demonstrated the cumulative poor prognostic role of concomitant medications on the clinical outcome of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, creating and validating a drug-based prognostic score to be calculated before immunotherapy initiation in patients with advanced solid tumours. This 'drug score' was calculated assigning score 1 for each between proton-pump inhibitor and antibiotic administration until a month before cancer therapy initiation and score 2 in case of corticosteroid intake. The good risk group included patients with score 0, intermediate risk with score 1-2 and poor risk with score 3-4., Methods: Aiming at validating the prognostic and putative predictive ability depending on the anticancer therapy, we performed the present comparative analysis in two cohorts of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), respectively, receiving first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy through a random case-control matching and through a pooled multivariable analysis including the interaction between the computed score and the therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy)., Results: Nine hundred fifty and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. After the case-control random matching, 589 patients from the pembrolizumab cohort and 589 from the chemotherapy cohort were paired, with no statistically significant differences between the characteristics of the matched subjects. Among the pembrolizumab-treated group, good, intermediate and poor risk evaluable patients achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 50.0%, 37.7% and 23.4%, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated group, patients achieved an ORR of 37.0%, 40.0% and 32.4%, respectively (p = 0.4346). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of good, intermediate and poor risk groups was 13.9 months, 6.3 months and 2.8 months, respectively, within the pembrolizumab cohort (p < 0.0001), and 6.2 months, 6.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively, within the chemotherapy cohort (p = 0.0280). Among the pembrolizumab-treated patients, the median overall survival (OS) for good, intermediate and poor risk patients was 31.4 months, 14.5 months and 5.8 months, respectively, (p < 0.0001), whereas among the chemotherapy-treated patients, it was 18.3 months, 16.8 months and 10.6 months, respectively (p = 0.0003). A similar trend was reported considering the two entire populations. At the pooled analysis, the interaction term between the score and the therapeutic modality was statistically significant with respect to ORR (p = 0.0052), PFS (p = 0.0003) and OS (p < 0.0001), confirming the significantly different effect of the score within the two cohorts., Conclusion: Our 'drug score' showed a predictive ability with respect to ORR in the immunotherapy cohort only, suggesting it might be a useful tool for identifying patients unlikely to benefit from first-line single-agent pembrolizumab. In addition, the prognostic stratification in terms of PFS and OS was significantly more pronounced among the pembrolizumab-treated patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.B. received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and for the advisory role from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis. M.B. received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer and as a consultant for the advisory role from Novartis, BMS and Pfizer; she also received fees for copyright transfer from Sciclone Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Seqirus UK, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche S.p.A. and Sanofi Genzyme. R.G. received speaker fees and grant consultancies from AstraZeneca and Roche. J.G.J.V.A. reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD and Roche. A.F. received grant consultancies from Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. F.M. received grant consultancies from MSD and Takeda. R.C. received speaker fees from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and AstraZeneca. C.G. received speaker fees/grant consultancies from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. M.R. received honoraria for scientific events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. E.B. received speaker and travel fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis and Roche and grant consultancies from Roche and Pfizer. M.C.G. received grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck, Bayer, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint; personal fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Incyte, Inivata, Takeda, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Daiichi Sankyo and other financial supports from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck Serono, MSD, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint. A.A. received grant consultancies from Takeda, MSD, BMJ, AstraZeneca, Roche and Pfizer. M.D.M. received research funding from Tesaro-GlaxoSmithKline and acted in a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, Janssen, Astellas, Roche and AstraZeneca. D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare; travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche and AstraZeneca and research funding (to the institution) from MSD and BMS. M.T. received honoraria from MSD, BMS, Boehringer (BI), Takeda and AstraZeneca and research funding from AstraZeneca. A.C. received speaker fees and grant consultancies from AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. All the other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Regorafenib (REG) and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) have have been shown to improve overall survival in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents administered in sequence in real world practice., Patients and Methods: Clinical data of patients treated beyond the 2°line with REG or FTD/TPI between January 2016 and August 2020, were retrospectively collected from eight institutes in the Lazio Region., Results: We included 49 patients treated with both drug sequences. A total of 28 G3/G4 toxicity events (53.8%) were recorded in the FTD/TPI-to-REG sequence vs. 24 (46.1%) in the reverse sequence. Median overall survival for the patients included in the FTP/TPI-to-REG group was 20 months (95%CI=16.7-23.3) vs. 27 months in the reverse group (95%CI=17.8-36.2). The disease control rate was 45.0% for patients treated with the REG-to-FTD/TPI sequence vs. 24.1% in those treated with the FTD/TPI-to-REG sequence (p=0.18)., Conclusion: The sequence REG-to-FTD/TPI and vice versa can extend survival, whereas only REG-to-FTD/TPI stabilizes cancer growth., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment sequencing with first-line immunotherapy, followed by second-line chemotherapy, is still a viable option for NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%., Methods: We evaluated post-progression treatment pathways in a large real-world cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy., Results: Overall, 974 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 22.7 months (95%CI: 21.6-38.2), the median overall survival (OS) of the entire population was 15.8 months (95%CI: 13.5-17.5; 548 events). At the data cutoff, among the 678 patients who experienced disease progression, 379 (55.9%) had not received any further treatment, and 359 patients (52.9%) had died. Patients who did not receive post-progression therapies were older (p = 0.0011), with a worse ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and were on corticosteroids prior to pembrolizumab (p = 0.0024). At disease progression, 198 patients (29.2%) received a switched approach and 101 (14.9%) received pembrolizumab ByPD either alone (64 [9.4%]) or in combination with local ablative treatments (37 [5.5%]) (LATs). After a random-case control matching according to ECOG-PS, CNS metastases, bone metastases, and (previous) best response to pembrolizumab, patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD plus LATs were confirmed to have a significantly longer post-progression OS compared to patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD alone 13.9 months versus 7.8 months (p = 0.0179) 241 patients (35.5%) among the 678 who had experienced PD, received a second-line systemic treatment (regardless of previous treatment beyond PD). As compared to first-line treatment commencement, patients' features at the moment of second-line initiation showed a significantly higher proportion of patients aged under 70 years (p = 0.0244), with a poorer ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and having CNS (p = 0.0001), bone (p = 0.0266) and liver metastases (p = 0.0148)., Conclusions: In the real-world scenario NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% treated with first-line single-agent pembrolizumab achieve worse outcomes as compared to the Keynote-024 trial. Poor post-progression outcomes are major determinants of the global results that should be considered when counselling patients for first-line treatment choices., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Dr Alessio Cortellini received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. Dr Raffaele Giusti received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca and Roche. Dr Joachim GJV Aerts reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD and Roche. Dr Alex Friedlaender received grant consultancies by Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. Dr Alessandro Morabito received speaker fees by Astra, Roche, BMS, MSD, Boehringer, Pfizer, Takeda. Dr Francesca Mazzoni received grant consultancies by MSD and Takeda. Dr Rita Chiari received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. Dr Carlo Genova received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. Dr Marco Russano received honoraria for scientific events by Roche, Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Marcello Tiseo received speakers’ and consultants’ fee from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre. Dr Alfredo Addeo received grant consultancies by Takeda, MSD, BMJ, Astrazeneca, Roche and Pfizer. Dr Rita Chiari received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. Dr Carlo Genova received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. Dr David J Pinato received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, Astra Zeneca; received research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite therapeutic improvements, resistance to palbociclib is a growing clinical challenge which is poorly understood. This study was conducted in order to understand the molecular mechanisms of resistance to palbociclib, and to identify biomarkers to predict who will take advantage from cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). A total of about a thousand blood samples were collected from 106 patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative metastatic breast cancer who received palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant as the first-line metastatic therapy enrolled in this study. The genotyping of their plasma cell-free DNA was studied, including serial plasma samples. Collectively, our findings identify the appearance of KRAS mutations leading to palbociclib resistance acquisition within 6 months, and provide critical information for the prediction of therapeutic responses in metastatic breast cancer. By monitoring KRAS status through liquid biopsy, we could predict who will take advantage from the combination of palbociclib and fulvestrant, offering highly-individualized treatment plans, thus ensuring the best patient quality of life.

Background: Some concomitant medications including antibiotics (ATB) have been reproducibly associated with worse survival following immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in unselected patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (according to programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and treatment line). Whether such relationship is causative or associative is matter of debate., Methods: We present the outcomes analysis according to concomitant baseline medications (prior to ICI initiation) with putative immune-modulatory effects in a large cohort of patients with metastatic NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression ≥50%, receiving first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. We also evaluated a control cohort of patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with first-line chemotherapy. The interaction between key medications and therapeutic modality (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy) was validated in pooled multivariable analyses., Results: 950 and 595 patients were included in the pembrolizumab and chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. Corticosteroid and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy but not ATB therapy was associated with poorer performance status at baseline in both the cohorts. No association with clinical outcomes was found according to baseline statin, aspirin, β-blocker and metformin within the pembrolizumab cohort. On the multivariable analysis, ATB emerged as a strong predictor of worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.42 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.79); p=0.0024), and progression free survival (PFS) (HR=1.29 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.59); p=0.0192) in the pembrolizumab but not in the chemotherapy cohort. Corticosteroids were associated with shorter PFS (HR=1.69 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.03); p<0.0001), and OS (HR=1.93 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.35); p<0.0001) following pembrolizumab, and shorter PFS (HR=1.30 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.56), p=0.0046) and OS (HR=1.58 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.94), p<0.0001), following chemotherapy. PPIs were associated with worse OS (HR=1.49 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.77); p<0.0001) with pembrolizumab and shorter OS (HR=1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.24), p=0.0139), with chemotherapy. At the pooled analysis, there was a statistically significant interaction with treatment (pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy) for corticosteroids (p=0.0020) and PPIs (p=0.0460) with respect to OS, for corticosteroids (p<0.0001), ATB (p=0.0290), and PPIs (p=0.0487) with respect to PFS, and only corticosteroids (p=0.0033) with respect to objective response rate., Conclusion: In this study, we validate the significant negative impact of ATB on pembrolizumab monotherapy but not chemotherapy outcomes in NSCLC, producing further evidence about their underlying immune-modulatory effect. Even though the magnitude of the impact of corticosteroids and PPIs is significantly different across the cohorts, their effects might be driven by adverse disease features., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche, Novartis, Istituto Gentili and Astellas. RG received speaker fees and grant consultancies by Astrazeneca and Roche. JA reports receiving commercial research grants from Amphera and Roche, holds ownership interest (including patents) in Amphera BV, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, MSD and Roche. AF received grant consultancies by Roche, Pfizer, Astellas and BMS. FM received grant consultancies by MSD and Takeda. RC received speaker fees by BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche and Astrazeneca. CG received speaker fees/grant consultancies by Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche and MSD. MR received honoraria for scientific events by Roche, Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD and Boehringer Ingelheim. EB received speaker and travel fees from MSD, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis and Roche; grant consultancies by Roche and Pfizer. MCG received grants from MSD, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck, Bayer, GSK, Spectrum, Blueprint, personal fees from Eli Lilly, Boheringer, Otsuka Pharma, Astrazeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Incyte, Inivata, Takeda, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Daichii Sankyo, other financial supports from Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Tiziana Sciences, Clovis, Merck Serono, MSD, GSK, Spectrum and Blueprint. AA received grant consultancies by Takeda, MSD, BMJ, Astrazeneca, Roche and Pfizer. MDM received research funding from Tesaro-GlaxoSmithKline; acted in a consulting/advisory role for Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda, Janssen, Astellas, Roche, AstraZeneca. FP received grant consultancies by MSD and Astrazeneca. PB received grant consultancies by Astrazeneca and Boehringer-Ingelheim. DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, Astra Zeneca; received research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS. All other authors declare no competing interests. DJP is supported by grant funding from the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund (PS3416) and has received direct project funding by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), ITMAT Push for Impact Grant Scheme 2019. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

We aimed to investigate the role of positron emission computed tomography (PET/CT) with 18 F-choline for predicting the outcome of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) submitted to treatment with Radium-223 ( 223 Ra-therapy). Clinical records of 20 mCRPC patients submitted to PET/CT with 18 F-choline before 223 Ra-therapy were retrospectively evaluated. The following PET-derived parameters were calculated: number of lesions, maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean), lean body mass corrected SUV peak (SULpeak), metabolic tumor volume (MATV), and total lesion activity (TLA). After 223 Ra-therapy, all patients underwent regular follow-up until death. The predictive power of clinical and PET-derived parameters on overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard method. All the patients showed 18 F-choline-avid lesions at baseline PET/CT. Among the enrolled subjects, eleven (55%) completed all the six scheduled cycles of 223 Ra-therapy; seven (35%) were responders according to imaging and biochemical parameters. Mean OS was 12.7 ± 1.4 months: by Kaplan-Meier analysis, number of lesions, PSA level and TLA were significantly correlated with OS. In multivariate Cox analysis, TLA remained the only significant predictor of survival ( p = 0.003; hazard ratio = 7.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.9-29.5 months). 18 F-choline PET may be useful for patients' stratification before 223 Ra-therapy. In particular, high metabolically active tumor burden (i.e., TLA) was predictive of poor outcome.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of metabolic parameters, calculated on pretreatment positron emission computed tomography (PET/CT) with fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG), for predicting complete response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) of patients affected by squamous cell anal carcinoma (SCAC)., Patients and Methods: Clinical records of 20 patients affected by SCAC and treated with CRT were retrospectively evaluated. F-FDG PET/CT was performed at time 0 (baseline) and time 1 (12 weeks after CRT). The following parameters were extracted from PET at time 0: standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). Response was assessed according to PET response criteria in solid tumors and classified as complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response (PMR) and progressive metabolic disease (PMD). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to analyze the predictive value of each PET-derived parameter on CMR., Results: Sixteen patients were finally enrolled. All presented increased F-FDG uptake in the primary tumor and 11 (68.7%) also showed metastatic lymph nodes. At PET/CT performed at time 1, 11 subjects (68.7%) presented CMR, three (18.7%) had PMR and the remaining two (12.5%) showed PMD (i.e. hepatic metastases). Among baseline PET-derived parameters, both MTV and TLG efficiently predicted response to CRT with an area under the curve of 0.9 (cutoff 62.3 cm, sensitivity 80%, specificity 100%, P = <0.0001) and 0.87 (cutoff 654.1 g, sensitivity 80%, specificity 100%, P = 0.004), respectively., Conclusion: Among PET-derived parameters, both MTV and TLG presented a high predictive value on subjects' outcome after CRT.

Regorafenib, targeting a broad range of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), is an oral multikinase inhibitor which improves the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients diagnosed with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), making an immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment. The correlation between PD-1/PD-L1 expression and RTKs inhibition has been studied in several tumour types but has not been analyzed extensively in mCRC in the era of regorafenib. In this study, using liquid biopsy, we evaluated the opportunity to reveal if PD-L1 expression on circulating tumour cells (CTCs) could serve as a predictive biomarker of response and clinical benefit in patients treated with regorafenib as the third line of treatment. We analyzed a cohort of forty chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients, of whom twenty-six KRAS mutated, treated with regorafenib, all as the third line of treatment. Blood samples were collected from patients prior to treatment and longitudinally four and eight weeks after initiation of therapy. CTCs were identified using multiparametric flow cytometry; therefore, PD-L1 expression was evaluated. Objective responses were defined following the RECIST criteria v.1.1. Moreover, focusing on peripheral blood biomarkers, we found that high platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) was an independent prognostic indicator of poor OS. For the first time, our study showed the usefulness of sequential assessments of CTCs as a non-invasive real-time biopsy to evaluate PD-L1 expression in patients diagnosed with mCRC and treated with regorafenib. Our analysis suggests that by assessing PD-L1 expression on CTCs, we could predict who will benefit from regorafenib, offering highly individualized treatment plans.

Here, we developed an unbiased, functional target-discovery platform to identify immunogenic proteins from primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells that had been induced to apoptosis by cisplatin (CDDP) treatment in vitro, as compared with their live counterparts. Among the multitude of proteins identified, some of them were represented as fragmented proteins in apoptotic tumor cells, and acted as non-mutated neoantigens (NM-neoAgs). Indeed, only the fragmented proteins elicited effective multi-specific CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses, upon a chemotherapy protocol including CDDP. Importantly, these responses further increased upon anti-PD-1 therapy, and correlated with patients' survival and decreased PD-1 expression. Cross-presentation assays showed that NM-neoAgs were unveiled in apoptotic tumor cells as the result of caspase-dependent proteolytic activity of cellular proteins. Our study demonstrates that apoptotic tumor cells generate a repertoire of immunogenic NM-neoAgs that could be potentially used for developing effective T cell-based immunotherapy across multiple cancer patients.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogeneous disease with a complex biology and a wide number of altered genes such as BRAF, KRAS and PIK3CA. Advances with new-targeted therapies have been achieved and available treating options have prolonged patient's survival. However, BRAF-mutated CRC patients remain unresponsive to available therapies with RAF inhibitors (RAFi) alone or combined with ErbB inhibitors (ErbBi). These unmet needs require further exploitation of oncogenic signaling in order to set up individualized treatments., Methods: To this end, we tested the efficacy of single agent or combined treatments using the BRAFi, vemurafenib and two different ErbBi: panitumumab and afatinib in CRC cells characterized by different molecular phenotypes., Results: Combination strategies with BRAFi and ErbBi achieved a better response in BRAF V600E mutated cells expressing high levels of ErbB2., Conclusions: Our findings support the importance of ErbB2 evaluation in BRAF-mutated CRC patients and its role as a positive predictor factor of response to BRAFi/ErbBi combination.

Purpose: Many studies have indicated that the response to therapy and the prognostic impact of a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment differ among breast cancer subtypes., Methods: The aim of our study is to evaluate the effect of this treatment on the expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors, human epidermal growth hormone receptor 2 and Ki67 in breast cancer. We identified 125 patients., Results: The estrogen receptor modified its expression from positive to negative in 8% patients and from negative to positive in 22%; progesterone in 21% and in 37% cases. Median Ki-67 value was 20.9% at biopsy and 18% after, HER-2 status did not show a remarkable change before or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We have identified a significant reduction in Ki-67 expression levels after chemotherapy in patients with a pathologic response. Detection of pretreatment Ki-67 could identify patients most likely to benefit from NACT., Conclusions: NACT can change the status of ER, PgR, and Ki-67 expression in patients with breast adenocarcinoma, but it did not exert a significant effect on HER-2 status; HER-2 amplification appears to be more stable. We have identified a prognostic role for a decreased expression of PgR and Ki-67 after preoperative chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Rationale: The palliative sedation therapy is defined as the intentional reduction of the alert state, using pharmacological tools. Propofol is a short-acting general anesthetic agent, widely used for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia and rarely employed in palliative care., Patient Concerns and Diagnoses: This case series describes 5 pediatric oncology inpatients affected by relapsed/refractory solid tumors received palliative sedation using propofol alone or in combination with opioids and benzodiazepines., Interventions and Outcomes: Five terminally ill children affected by solid tumors received propofol-based palliative sedation. All patients were previously treated with opioids and some of them reduced the consumption of these drugs after propofol starting. In all cases the progressive increase of the level of sedation until the death has been the only effective measure of control of refractory symptoms related todisease progression and psychological suffering., Lessons: We evaluated the quality of propofol-based palliative sedation in a series of pediatric oncology patients with solid tumors at the end of their life. We concluded that propofol represents an effective and tolerable adjuvant drug for the management of intractable suffering and a practicable strategy for palliative sedation in pediatric oncology patients at the end of their life.

A clear cell tumor is a histological entity that rarely originates outside of the kidney. We describe a rare case of a clear cell tumor of the lung, also known as "sugar cancer," that occurred in a 74 year-old male patient, and perform a brief literature review. This report highlights the importance of an adequate disease management team, including surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists, to identify the best therapeutic approach to improve survival rates and the quality of life of patients affected by this rare disease., (© 2019 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the trachea is a rare tumor, characterized by slow growth and low rate of local and distant metastasis. When achievable, complete surgical resection represents the optimal treatment approach, with the highest results in terms of overall survival. Radiation therapy is a reasonable alternative in cases of inoperable disease., Case Presentation: We report a case of an 82-year-old white man affected by primary adenoid cystic carcinoma of the trachea, treated with debulking surgery and radiotherapy on the residual disease. A three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy was conducted. The total dose amounted to 70 Gy, administered in 35 fractions of 2 Gy. The medium doses given to the esophagus and lungs were 23 Gy and 4.2 Gy respectively. The maximum dose delivered to the spinal cord was 31 Gy with satisfactory results in terms of local control of the disease., Conclusion: A combined approach of surgical resection followed by radiotherapy on the residual disease provided an excellent result in terms of disease control, quality of life, and overall survival in a patient with locally advanced tracheal adenoid cystic carcinoma.

Purpose of Investigation: Female infertility is a widespread problem in Western countries. During past years, an association between ovarian stimulation in unfertile women and breast cancer risk has been hypothesized., Objective: Purpose of the present investigation was to comment the most updated studies about an eventual relationship between fertility drugs and breast cancer risk., Materials and Methods: The authors performed a review of the current literature regarding the possible association between the use of fertility drugs and the enhanced risk of breast cancer. They searched digital databases including Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The literature search was performed using various combinations of keywords. They carefully analyzed only the full versions of all relevant studies., Results: Using various combination of keywords, the authors examined 930 papers. They considered only papers written in English. With these criteria they selected the studies that had been discussed in detail on the text., Conclusion: None of the works commented provides an indisputable evidence about a link between ovarian stimulation and breast cancer risk. On the contrary, most of them actually suggest a lack of interaction between them or even a protective role of ovarian stimulation.

The relationship between fertility, reproductive hormones, and risk of malignant melanoma has acquired much interest in recent years. Melanocytes are hormonally responsive cells, and some in vitro studies demonstrated that estrogen hormones stimulate the growth of melanocytes. Moreover, estrogen receptors have been identified in melanoma cells, as well as in melanocytic nevi and in normal skin. Some evidences suggest a possible link between fertility treatments and the increased risk of malignant melanoma. This article addresses this association through a scrupulous search of the literature published thus far. The aim of this review is to determine the incidence of malignant melanoma in women treated with fertility drugs and to examine if the exposure to fertility treatments really increases the risk of malignant melanoma. In particular, our analysis focused on the different types of drugs and different treatment schedules used. Finally, this study provides additional insights regarding the long-term relationships between fertility drugs and the risk of malignant melanoma.

Purpose of Review: Female infertility is today a very common, expanding problem and therefore restoring fertility strategies are increasing in the last few years. An association between ovarian stimulation and breast cancer risk has been hypothesized, but the question has not yet been clarified., Recent Findings: In the last 2 years, many important studies have been published on this topic. A lot of new combinations of drugs are in experimentation and other recent drugs are already in current use, such as aromatase inhibitors. Furthermore, the data from older studies were investigated by two recent meta-analyses., Summary: Infertility affects many couples in western countries and the use of fertility stimulation techniques is widespread in the last few years, determining personal anxiety, social costs, and organizing difficulties. It is well known that one of the most important causative agents for the development of breast cancer is the proliferative activity of endogenous and exogenous female hormones. Therefore, it seems appropriate to investigate the risk of breast cancer derived from the use of hormonal therapies in infertile women. The final clarification of this question is very important so that all women can realize their dream of having children, with the certainty of not being exposed to an increased risk of breast cancer.

Several adverse effects have been related to infertility treatments, such as cancer development. In particular, the relationship between infertility, reproductive strategies, and risk of gynecological cancers has aroused much interest in recent years. The evaluation of cancer risk among women treated for infertility is very complex, mainly because of many factors that can contribute to occurrence of cancer in these patients (including parity status). This article addresses the possible association between the use of fertility treatments and the risk of ovarian cancer, through a scrupulous search of the literature published thus far in this field. Our principal objective was to give more conclusive answers on the question whether the use of fertility drug significantly increases ovarian cancer risk. Our analysis focused on the different types of drugs and different treatment schedules used. This study provides additional insights regarding the long-term relationships between fertility drugs and risk of ovarian cancer.