Search

Background: The 5-year results of this trial showed that adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in longer relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with BRAF V600-mutated stage III melanoma. Longer-term data were needed, including data regarding overall survival., Methods: We randomly assigned 870 patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations to receive 12 months of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or two matched placebos. Here, we report the final results of this trial, including results for overall survival, melanoma-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival., Results: The median duration of follow-up was 8.33 years for dabrafenib plus trametinib and 6.87 years for placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo, although the benefit was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.01; P = 0.06 by stratified log-rank test). A consistent survival benefit was seen across several prespecified subgroups, including the 792 patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.96). Relapse-free survival favored dabrafenib plus trametinib over placebo (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.63), as did distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio for distant metastasis or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.71). No new safety signals were reported, a finding consistent with previous trial reports., Conclusions: After nearly 10 years of follow-up, adjuvant therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was associated with better relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival than placebo among patients with resected stage III melanoma. The analysis of overall survival showed that the risk of death was 20% lower with combination therapy than with placebo, but the benefit was not significant. Among patients with melanoma with a BRAF V600E mutation, the results suggest that the risk of death was 25% lower with combination therapy. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682083; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The potential impact of concomitant medications such as systemic antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and probiotics in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) receiving first-line chemo-immunotherapy combinations remains unclear. We ran a post hoc analysis of the IMpower133 phase I/III trial, which randomized patients with ES-SCLC to receive carboplatin/etoposide with either atezolizumab or placebo for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance therapy. We included any systemic antibiotic/probiotic exposure within 42 days prior to treatment initiation and any PPIs treatment within 30 days prior to treatment initiation. We explored the potential prognostic impact of antibiotics, PPIs and probiotics across the atezolizumab/chemotherapy and placebo/chemotherapy arms including the multivariable interaction term between the treatment modality and antibiotics/PPIs/probiotics. The analysis included 198 patients in the atezolizumab/chemotherapy arm and 195 in the placebo/chemotherapy arm. Baseline clinic-pathologic features were well balanced between the two cohorts, with 17 (8.6%) and 14 (7.2%) patients on antibiotics, 43 (21.7%) and 55 (28.2%) on PPIs, and 3 (1.5%) and 5 (2.6%) on probiotics among the atezolizumab/chemotherapy and placebo/chemotherapy cohorts, respectively. Exposure to antibiotics, PPIs, or probiotics was not associated with overall survival or progression free survival in either cohort. Furthermore, interaction terms between these medications and treatment modalities were not statistically significant. Baseline use of antibiotics, PPIs or probiotics did not influence clinical outcomes in patients with ES-SCLC treated with first-line atezolizumab/placebo plus chemotherapy, suggesting that they may not have a notable impact on clinical outcomes and could be considered for use in this patient population when necessary., (© 2024 UICC.)

Purpose: KRASG12D mutation (mut) occurs in about 10%-12% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, novel KRASG12D inhibitors have been developed and are currently under investigation in phase I/II clinical trials in solid tumors including mCRC. We aimed at performing a comprehensive characterization of clinical, molecular, immunologic, and prognostic features of KRASG12D-mutated mCRC to inform the design and the interpretation of future trials., Methods: We performed a pooled analysis of phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies comparing 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI)/bevacizumab (bev) to doublets (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan)/bev., Results: One hundred and thirty-six (16%) of 854 patients with available KRASG12D mutational status were KRASG12D mutated. KRASG12D-mutated patients had more frequently right-sided primary tumor and were less likely to present liver-only metastases with respect to other RAS mutated and all-wild-type (wt) patients. Compared with the BRAFV600E-mutated group, KRASG12D-mutated patients had more frequently left-sided primary tumor, resected primary tumor at the time of diagnosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0. KRASG12D-mutated patients had better prognosis than BRAFV600E-mutated and worse prognosis than all wt patients. No prognostic difference was evident between KRASG12D mut and other RAS mut patients overall or according to other specific KRAS or NRAS hotspot mutations. No interaction effect was observed between KRASG12D mut and the benefit provided by FOLFOXIRI/bev compared with doublets/bev. PIK3CA mut were reported more frequently among KRASG12D-mutated tumors compared with both other RAS mut and all wt., Conclusion: A detail estimation of KRASG12D mut mCRC patients' characteristics and expected outcomes may be useful when planning future studies in this subgroup. The high prevalence of PI3K/PTEN/Akt pathway activating alterations may affect the efficacy of targeted strategies.

Background: Neoadjuvant use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) before liver resection results in pathological tumour regression in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to describe the characteristics of pathological responses after preoperative ICI therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma and to evaluate the association between the depth of tumour regression and relapse-free survival., Methods: In this cross-trial, patient-level analysis, we performed a pooled analysis of data from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving ICI therapy before liver resection as part of a global collaborative consortium (NeoHCC) of five phase 1 and 2 clinical trials and standardised observational protocols conducted in 12 tertiary referral centres across the USA, UK, and Taiwan. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma by tissue core biopsy before treatment initiation, a Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 5 on imaging, or both, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, and no extrahepatic spread or previous ICI treatment. Pathological response was measured as the percentage of non-viable tumour in the resected surgical specimen, with major pathological response corresponding to at least 70% tumour regression and pathological complete response corresponding to 100% tumour regression. We correlated pathological response with radiological overall response using RECIST criteria (version 1.1) and relapse-free survival, and evaluated the threshold of tumour regression that could be optimally associated with relapse-free survival., Findings: At data cutoff on Jan 31, 2024, 111 patients were included in the study, of whom data on pathological response were available for 104 (94%) patients. Patients received treatment from Oct 5, 2017, to Nov 15, 2023, mostly ICI combinations (76 [69%]), for a median of 1·4 months (IQR 0·7-2·9). 87 (78%) patients were men and 24 (22%) were women. Most patients had underlying viral chronic liver disease (73 [66%]) and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A hepatocellular carcinoma (61 [55%]), without portal vein thrombosis (87 [78%]). We observed major pathological response in 33 (32%) patients and pathological complete response in 19 (18%) patients. Radiological overall response was associated with major pathological response, with 23 (74%) of 31 patients with radiological response showing major pathological response compared with ten (14%) of 73 patients without radiological response (p<0·0001). However, ten (30%) of 33 major pathological responses were not predicted by radiological response. After a median follow-up of 27·2 months (95% CI 22·3-32·1), median relapse-free survival for the whole cohort was 43·6 months (95% CI 28·3-not evaluable). Relapse-free survival was significantly longer in patients with major pathological response than in those who did not have a major pathological response (not reached [95% CI not evaluable-not evaluable] vs 28·3 months [12·8-43·8]; hazard ratio 0·26 [0·10-0·66]; p=0·0024) and in patients with pathological complete response than in those who did not have a pathological complete response (NR [95% CI not evaluable-not evaluable] vs 32·8 months [15·0-50·5]; 0·19 [0·05-0·78]; p=0·010). Unbiased recursive partitioning of the cohort for the risk of relapse, death, or both identified a threshold of 90% as the optimal cutoff of pathological tumour regression to predict improved relapse-free survival., Interpretation: The extent of tumour regression following neoadjuvant ICI therapy could identify patients with improved relapse-free survival following liver resection. The threshold of at least 90% tumour regression should be validated for its surrogate role for relapse-free survival in phase 3 randomised controlled trials., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AD received educational support for congress attendance and consultancy fees from Roche; and speaker fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Chugai. SS reports consultancy fees from Eisai and Pfizer. CAMF reports speaker fees from EISAI. CC received consulting fees from Eisai and MSD; speaker fees from Eisai, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen; and travel expenses from Roche. SCW received speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Intercept; and research funding (to their institution) from Boehringer Ingelheim. AC received consulting fees from Regeneron, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Roche; speaker fees from Sanofi–Regeneron, MSD, Roche, and AstraZeneca; and travel expenses from MSD, Roche, and Sanofi–Regeneron. CH received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb–ONO, and Roche; and research funding (to their institution) from National Science and Technology Council (Taiwan) and Bristol Myers Squibb–ONO. MB received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Eisai. MY received speaker fees from Genentech, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Replimune, Hepion, and Lantheus; grant or research support (to their institution) from the National Cancer Institute–National Institutes of Health, Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation, Cancer Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Incyte, and Genentech; and is cofounder with equity of Adventris Pharmaceuticals. TUM received consulting fees from Avammune Therapeutics and ONO; participated on boards for Rockefeller, AbbVie, Celldex, Regeneron, AbbVie, Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Atara, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Chimeric, Glenmark, Simcere, Surface, G1 Therapeutics, NGM Bio, DBV Technologies, Arcus, Fate, EMD Serono, and Astellas; and received research funding (to their institution) from Regeneron, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim. DJP received lecture fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Boston Scientific; travel expenses from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, Avamune, Da Volterra, Mursla, H3B, Ipsen, Boston Scientific, Starpharma, Exact Sciences, and AstraZeneca; participated on advisory boards for Mina Therapeutics, Eisai, Roche, Avamune, Da Volterra, Mursla, H3B, Ipsen, LIfT Biosciences, Exact Sciences, and AstraZeneca; and received research funding (to their institution) from MSD, GSK, and Bristol Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Background: The PRODIGE-23 study showed a higher benefit for FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) as induction chemotherapy followed by long-course chemoradiotherapy (CTRT) respect to neoadjuvant CTRT alone both followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The added value of treatment intensification with irinotecan, over the doublet induction with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin is still debated., Objective: To assess survival, pathological complete response (pCR) rate, and safety from phase II-III trials comparing triplet and doublet induction both followed by CTRT and TME in LARC., Methods: After a systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, data from Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were extracted from phase II-III clinical trials. Phase II-III trials including at least one treatment arm with doublet or triplet induction chemotherapy without biological agents administered for a minimum of 3 months followed by long-course CTRT and TME and with at least 48 months of follow-up were selected. When available, the neoadjuvant CTRT alone arms of the selected studies were included as a comparator reference treatment. Individual patient DFS and OS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials through graphical reconstruction between April 10th and May 19th, 2024. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated in a subsequent network meta-analysis (NMA). pCR rates and grade ≥ 3 adverse events rates were also collected. Primary endpoints were DFS and OS between triplet and doublet induction. Secondary endpoints were DFS and OS between neoadjuvant CTRT alone and triplet or doublet induction as well as pCR rates and safety profile among different arms., Results: Out of 674 patients enrolled in 3 trials, 231, 161 and 282 were treated with FOLFIRINOX or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) followed by CTRT or neoadjuvant CTRT alone, respectively. 5-year DFS rates were 73.1 % [95 %CI: 67.2 % - 79.0 %], 61.7 % [95 %CI: 53.9 % - 69.5 %] and 65.1 % [95 %CI: 59.4 % - 70.8 %] for triplet induction, doublet induction, and neoadjuvant CTRT alone, respectively. 5-year OS rates were 86.8 % [95 %CI: 82.3 % - 91.3 %], 74.7 % [95 %CI: 67.6 % - 81.8 %], and 79.6 % [95 %CI: 74.9 % - 84.3 %] for FOLFIRINOX, CAPOX, and neoadjuvant CTRT alone, respectively. Triplet induction showed longer DFS and OS respect to doublet induction (HR for DFS: 0.67 [95 % CI 0.47 - 0.96], p = 0.03; HR for OS: 0.49 [95 % CI 0.31 - 0.78], p = 0.003) with a trend for superiority when compared with neoadjuvant CTRT alone (HR for DFS: 0.77 [95 % CI 0.57 - 1.05], p = 0.10; HR for OS: 0.67 [95 % CI 0.45 - 1.01], p = 0.06). No difference was observed between the doublet induction and neoadjuvant CTRT groups. pCR rates were higher for patients treated with FOLFIRINOX (27.7 %) respect to subjects receiving CAPOX (19.7 %, p = 0.02) or neoadjuvant CTRT alone (12.5 %, p < 0.0001). Triplet was associated with higher rates of severe neutropenia (17 % vs 1 %, p < 0.0001) and nausea-vomiting (11 % vs 3 %, p = 0.02) respect to doublet induction., Conclusions: Induction with FOLFIRINOX showed better survival outcomes and pCR rates respect to CAPOX at the price of increased G3-4 neutropenia and nausea/vomiting. A randomized study comparing triplet and doublet chemotherapy in the frame of a total neoadjuvant treatment strategy is widely warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. C.C. has received honoraria for speaker or advisory roles from Bayer, Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, Mirati, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Nordic Pharma and Takeda; and research grants from Bayer, Servier, Merck and Amgen.G.M. has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaux, manuscript writing or educational events from Roche, MSD, Eisai, Terumo, Amgen, Merck Serono; support for attending meetings and or travel from Roche, MSD, Eisai, Terumo, Amgen, Merck Serono; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Roche,MSD, Eisai.R.M., G.V., M.C., P.C. declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on the efficacy and safety of anti PD-1 antibodies in children and adolescents (CA) with melanoma are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine outcomes of CA melanoma patients receiving anti PD-1 antibodies., Methods: Melanoma patients ≤18 years treated with anti PD-1 were retrospectively retrieved from 15 academic centers. Information on histopathological diagnosis, surgical treatment, systemic therapy, objective response rate (ORR), safety profile was collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Between April 2016 and March 2024, 99 patients treated with systemic therapy were retrieved, 81 treated with anti PD-1 therapy. Median age was 14 years (range 2-18 years), 37 pts were ≤12 yrs. Overall, 38 CA patients received anti PD-1 in adjuvant setting, and the 3-year PFS and OS were 70.6 % and 81.1 %, respectively. Two patients received anti-PD-1 based neoadjuvant treatment, both had a pathologic complete response and remain disease free. Fifty-six received a systemic therapy for advanced disease and among them, 43 received anti PD-1-based therapy for advanced disease in 1st line, while 12 and 5 pts received a 2nd and 3rd line, respectively. Among patients receiving a 1st line therapy with anti PD-1 monotherapy the ORR was 25 %, and the 3-year OS was 34 %. Toxicities were consistent with previous studies in adult melanoma patients., Conclusions: Our study provides the first evidence of efficacy of anti PD-1 in CA melanoma patients and supports the use of anti PD-1 therapy in pts ≤18 years, included those <12 years., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The introduction of PARP inhibitors has revolutionized the management and treatment of patients with pathogenic germline variants of BRCA1/2 who have developed breast cancer. The implementation of PARP inhibitors in clinical settings can be challenging due to their overlapping indications with other drugs, including both recently approved medications and those with proven efficacy. This study utilized the Delphi method to present the first Italian consensus regarding genetic testing, the use of PARP inhibitors in both early and metastatic settings, and strategies for managing the potential toxicity of these novel drugs. The Panel unanimously agreed on various issues, including the timing, techniques, and patient characteristics for BRCA1/2 genetic testing, andthe appropriate placement of PARP inhibitors in the treatment algorithm for both early and advanced breast cancer. Nevertheless, some areas of divergence became evident, particularly regarding the use of axillary surgery for therapeutic purposes and the application of hormone replacement therapy in cases of bilateral mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for patients treated for triple negative breast cancer. Additional research is needed in these particular domains to improve the care of patients with breast cancer who bear an increased genetic risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. This research received no specific grants or funding., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The definition of "non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer" (nmHSPC) can be applied to patients with prostate cancer (PC) who are androgen-deprivation therapy-naïve and without evidence of metastatic disease. This definition includes heterogeneous situations; however, PC patients at high risk of metastatic spread - and who have not started a hormonal treatment - constitute a unique category with unmet clinical needs. This narrative review critically discusses the advances that characterize the rapidly evolving diagnostic and therapeutic scenario in the nmHSPC setting. We found that nmHSPC represents a grey zone in the context of PC. New clinical trials are trying to redefine the therapeutic algorithm of these patients, but escalating treatment seems not to be the right choice for the overall population. Biomarkers able to stratify patients - including molecular ones - are urgently needed, and biomarker-based clinical trials could clarify their prognostic and predictive role in the nmHSPC scenario., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Emilio Francesco Giunta received personal fees from Novartis and travel accommodation from Janssen and Bayer. Giandomenico Roviello received honoraria for advisory boards or invited speaker fees from BMS, Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca. Vincenza Conteduca: received honoraria for advisory boards or speaker fees from Janssen, Astellas, Merck, AstraZeneca, 'Ipsen, Bayer, Novartis, Recordati, BMS, MSD, GSK. Elena Verzoni received honoraria for advisory boards or speaker fees from MSD, Pfizer, Astellas, BMS, AstraZeneca, Ipsen and Janssen. Giuseppe Procopio services advisory boards/consulting for Astellas, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol Myers, BMS, Janssen, EISAI, Ely Lilly, Janssen, IPSEN, Menarini, Merk, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer. Ugo De Giorgi received honoraria for advisory boards or speaker fees for Pfzer, BMS, MSD, PharmaMar, Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Roche, Novartis, Clovis, GSK, AstraZeneca, institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Roche, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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.)

Cancer prehabilitation is the process between the time of cancer diagnosis and the beginning of the active acute treatment; prehabilitation consists of various need-based interventions, e.g., physical activity, a nutritional program, and psychological support. It can be delivered as unimodal or multimodal interventions. Physical activity, including resistant exercise and aerobic activities, has to be tailored according to the patient's characteristics; nutritional support is aimed at preventing malnutrition and sarcopenia; while psychological intervention intercepts the patient's distress and supports specific intervention to address it. In addition, multimodal prehabilitation could have a potential impact on the immune system, globally reducing the inflammatory processes and, as a consequence, influencing cancer progression. However, many challenges are still to be addressed, foremost among them the feasibility of prehabilitation programs, the lack of adequate facilities for these programs' implementation, and the fact that not all prehabilitation interventions are reimbursed by the national health system.

Background and Objectives: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), and peripherally inserted midlines (MC) represent a possible less invasive alternative option to totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVAD) in cancer patients. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of PICC, and MC devices in patients undergoing chemotherapy., Methods: A prospective non-concurrent observational study was conducted at the IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova (Italy) on 559 cancer patients candidate to chemotherapy bearing PICC, and MC during the period 2019-2022. The primary endpoint was the comparative analysis for failure of the different types of peripheral insertion accesses requiring removal. Secondary outcome measures were age at diagnosis, gender, period of diagnosis, cancer site and type of chemotherapy. The negative binomial regression analysis was applied to estimate catheter removal rate ratios (RR), along with 95% confidence limits (95% CL), in each category of the risk factors., Results: The median follow-up time was 2.6 months (IQR = 1.4-4.6; min-max = 0.03-12.7), and at the end of the study period, a total of 45 catheter failures were detected. A risk reduction of approximately 75% (RR = 0.24; 95% CL = 0.11-0.51) was emphasized for patients with PICC when compared with those with MLC. Type of chemotherapy and cancer site appeared to be important predictive factors for catheter removal risk., Conclusions: For cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy by a non TIVAD, PICC must be preferred to MC because of higher safety and efficacy., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Sergio Bertoglio is Chief Medical Officer of Plan1 Health s.r.l., Amaro (UD), Italy.

Background: BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are approved for BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma. Combinations of BRAFi/MEKi with CPIs may further improve outcomes and could offer additional treatment strategies., Methods: STARBOARD (NCT04657991) is a phase III study with an initial safety lead-in (SLI) phase conducted to determine the recommended phase III dose (RP3D) for encorafenib in combination with binimetinib and pembrolizumab. Patients with untreated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant cutaneous melanoma received binimetinib 45 mg twice daily and pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus encorafenib 450 mg once daily (COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab) or 300 mg once daily (COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab). The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Secondary endpoints included safety, objective response, time to response, and duration of response. Progression-free survival was assessed post hoc., Results: In the SLI, the median follow-up duration was 19.4 months. Twenty patients received COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab and 17 received COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab. DLTs occurred in 1 of 17 DLT-evaluable patients in the COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab arm and in 2 of 17 DLT-evaluable patients in the COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab arm. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm. The overall response rate was 65.0 % in the COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab arm and 47.1 % in the COMBO300 plus pembrolizumab arm., Conclusion: The STARBOARD SLI showed that safety across the cohorts was generally comparable to the known safety profile of each agent. The standard dose regimen of COMBO450 plus pembrolizumab was chosen as the RP3D., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. Oleksandr Dudnichenko: No disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. Oleksandr Dudnichenko. No disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. Konstantin Penkov. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche. Meredith McKean. Research Funding: Ascentage Pharma Group, Alpine Immune, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioMed Valley Discoveries, BioNTech, Dragonfly Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Erasca, Exelixis, Foghorn Therapeutics, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, IDEAYA Biosciences, Ikena Oncology, ImmViraPharma, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Kechow Pharma, Kinnate Biopharma, MedImmune, Mereo BioPharma, Metabomed, Moderna, NBE Therapeutics, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Oncorus, PACT Pharma, Pfizer, Plexxikon, Prelude Therapeutics, Pyramid Biosciences, Regeneron, Sapience Therapeutics, Scholar Rock, Seagen, Synthrox, Tempest Therapeutics, TeneoBio, Tizona Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, TopAlliance Biosciences. Consulting or Advisory Role: Array BioPharma, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BicycleTx Limited, Castle Biosciences, IDEAYA Biosciences, iTeos, Therapeutics, MedPage Today, Pfizer, Regeneron. Mario Mandalà. Honoraria: MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Aventis, Bristol Myers Squibb/Sanofi. Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. Research Funding: Novartis (Inst). Mariia Kukushkina. No disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. Timothy Panella. No disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. Tibor Csőszi. No disclosures or conflicts of interest to report. Paola Gerletti. Employment: Formerly Pfizer. Mahgull Thakur. Employment: Formerly Pfizer. Anna Polli. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer. Honoraria: Pfizer. Alessandra di Pietro. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer. Honoraria: Pfizer. Dirk Schadendorf. Honoraria: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Immunocore, Merck Serono, Array BioPharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Philogen, Regeneron, 4SC, Sanofi/Regeneron, NeraCare GmbH, Sun Pharma, Inflarx GmbH, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo Japan, LabCorp, Nektar, Replimune. Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck Serono, 4SC, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, Nektar. Speakers’ Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron, Merck KGaA. Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Array BioPharma/Pfizer (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi/Regeneron., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The most frequently used first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Upon progression after this treatment, the standard of care in many countries is sorafenib, due to the lack of reimbursement for other drugs. Several randomized trials are currently underway to clarify the best second-line therapy in patients with HCC. This real-world study aimed to compare outcomes reached by lenvatinib and sorafenib second-line therapy in this setting., Methods: The overall cohort included 891 patients with HCC from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line setting between October 2018 and April 2022. At the data cut-off (May 2022), 41.5% of patients were continuing a first-line treatment, 5.5% were lost at follow-up, and 53.0% of patients had progressive disease after first-line therapy. 51.5% of patients with progressive disease received a second-line treatment, while 48.5% did not receive any subsequent therapy. Between patients receiving second-line treatment, 11.1% of patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization, 21.0% received sorafenib, 35.4% underwent lenvatinib, and 32.5% were treated with other drugs., Results: Lenvatinib second-line subgroup achieved a median overall survival (mOS) of 18.9 months, significative longer (p = 0.01; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24) compared to sorafenib subgroup that reached a mOS of 14.3 months. The multivariate analysis highlighted albumin-bilirubin 1 grade (p < 0.01; HR: 5.23) and lenvatinib second-line therapy (p = 0.01; HR: 2.18) as positive prognostic factors for OS. The forest plot highlighted a positive trend in terms of OS in favor of patients treated with lenvatinib second-line regardless of baseline characteristics before first-line therapy., Conclusion: These results suggest that, in patients with HCC progressed to first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib second-line therapy is associated to an improved survival compared to sorafenib., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The widespread use of next-generation sequencing in clinical practice has contributed to the accumulation of a large number of genomic findings associated with targeted therapy; therefore, the problem of ranking the detected findings has become acute. The European Society for Medical Oncology Scale of Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) system was designed by the European Society for Medical Oncology to rank biomarkers into levels of evidence that reflect their potency and clinical significance based on published clinical data. However, the ESCAT system remains imperfect, as it is based on a subjective assessment of the levels of evidence., Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether the ranking of LOE for biomarker-drug pairs based on the ESCAT system is dependent on the human factor, and to uncover potential issues associated with the use of the framework., Methods: To evaluate the inter-rater agreement, we created a dataset of a total of 154 biomarker-drug pairs for 18 unique tumor types. We aimed to include biomarker-drug pairs that could be considered standard of care as well as less common and under investigated pairs. Fourteen precision oncology experts were invited to assign an ESCAT level of evidence for biomarker-drug pairs. Statistical analysis was carried out using Cohen's kappa and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test., Results: The inter-rater agreement was low with some exceptions, and significant deviations from the consensus level of evidence were observed. For biomarker-drug associations, the deviations from the consensus were observed for more than 50% of the contributors' rankings. The most agreement between the contributors was observed for lung adenocarcinoma (p < 0.005), while the most disagreement was observed for esophageal cancer (p < 0.01) biomarker-drug pairs in our dataset., Conclusions: This study demonstrates noteworthy discordances between the precision oncology experts and may provide the directions for future developments in modifying the ESCAT framework and the overall applicability of the results of genomic profiling into clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Introduction: Randomised evidence supports the use of partial breast irradiation (PBI) with targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) for early stage breast cancer, but prospective data from real-world adoption of this technique is also important. The aim of this study was to determine if the outcome reported in TARGIT-A trial could be replicated in large cohort of early stage breast cancer treated with TARGIT-IORT., Methods: This prospective observational study analysed all patients treated with TARGIT-IORT between 2004 and 2021 in a single national cancer institute. TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was performed according to the risk-adapted TARGIT-A protocol using the Intrabeam ® device. We analysed the completeness of follow up, 5-year in-breast-tumour-recurrence (IBTR), long term local recurrence free survival, distant disease-free survival, overall survival and breast-cancer-related survival, using the Kaplan-Meier method. A covariate analysis was performed to investigate risk factors for IBTR. We also analysed high grade toxicity events., Results: The study included 814 patients and the a median follow up was 72 months. The majority of patients (60.3%) received TARGIT-IORT as PBI modality ("exclusive IORT" group); 39.7% received additional EBRT. There was no significant difference between the 5 years IBTR for the whole study population and the "exclusive IORT" cohort (1.6% (95%CI=1.1-2.1%) and 2.5% (95%CI=1.7%-3.3%) respectively). 5 years overall survival and tumour related survival were >95%. In 21% of patients with recurrence, breast was preserved. Radiotherapy toxicity (CTCAE Grade>2) was very rare (0.9%)., Conclusions: This large single institute study found that breast cancer control and survival outcomes with TARGIT-IORT were consistent with TARGIT-A trial results. This "real world" experience confirmed that the randomised evidence showing the value of TARGIT-IORT as partial breast irradiation modality that can be replicated in routine clinical practice., Competing Interests: JV: Research support from University College London Hospitals UCLH/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research NIHR Health Technology Assessment HTA programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF, and Cancer Research Campaign now Cancer Research UK, Photoelectron Corp 1996-99, Carl Zeiss for supporting data management at the University of Dundee Dundee, UK, 2004-2008, and some conference expenses and honorariums. MA: consulting fee from L’Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale INSERM, France International Agency for Atomic Energy IAEA, Vienna International Centre for Theoretical Physics ICTP by Unesco and supporting grant from European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics EFOMP Italian Association of Medical Physicists AIFM. FP: research grant/consulting fees/honoraria from Astrazeneca, Daichii Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Exact Science, Lidead. Menarini, MSD, Novartis Pfizer, Roche, Seagen. 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. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Vinante, Vaidya, Caroli, Mileto, Piccoli, Avanzo, Barresi, Marson, Montico, Baboci, Perin, Urbani, Puglisi, Mascarin and Massarut.)

Background: Colorectal cancer is a worldwide leading cause of death accounting for high-rate mortality. Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor and RAS/MAPK pathways, as well as altered methylation genes profiles, have been described as molecular mechanisms promoting and sustaining tumour development and progression. Aberrant methylation is a well-known epigenetic mechanism involved in gene regulation; particularly several genes were reported as hypermethylated in CRC. Recently, it was shown that epigenetic alterations in genes such as neuropeptide y, proenkephalin and Wnt inhibitory factor 1 can be used as promising disease biomarkers. Almost all methods developed for the DNA methylation analysis combined next generation sequencing, conventional qRT-PCR or ddPCR with the prior DNA modification with sodium bisulfite., Methods and Results: We implemented a ddPCR method to assess the methylation status of Wnt inhibitory factor 1 and neuropeptide y using the methylation sensitive restriction enzyme approach that does not impact on DNA quality and guarantees the discrimination of DNA methylation independent of bisulfite conversion., Conclusions: We showed that this method is robust and sensitive also allowing the monitoring of CRC disease progression when applied to circulating free DNA samples from liquid biopsies, proving to be a fast and easy to implement assay to be used for the monitoring of the methylation pattern of clinically relevant target genes., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background and Aims: The best adjuvant chemotherapy for resected biliary tract cancer (BTC) is under debate, with capecitabine supported by weak evidence. Aim of this network meta-analysis is to estimate the efficacy of different phase II/III regimens, comparing monotherapies (gemcitabine or fluoropyrimidines) head-to-head, against observation and combination regimens., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed and EMBASE for phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available as of December 2023, reporting hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). A frequentist framework employing a random-effects model was applied; treatment rankings were outlined according to P-score, based on direct and indirect evidence. Exploratory subgroup analyses for OS were also performed (primary site, resected margin status and nodal involvement)., Results: Six RCTs (1979 total patients) were identified. Fluoropyrimidine monotherapy showed significantly better OS (HR .84 [.72-.97]) and EFS (HR .79 [.69-.91]) than observation, as any monotherapy did (HR .84 [.74-.96]; HR .79 [.70-.89]). In the head-to-head comparison for OS, only S1 confirmed to be superior to observation alone (HR .69 [.49-.98]) while fluoropyrimidines achieved the best P score (.81), similarly to any monotherapy (0.92). Combinations failed to prove superior to monotherapies with respect both to OS and EFS. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive due to results' inconsistency and limited sample size., Conclusions: Our work confirmed that adjuvant chemotherapy grants OS and EFS benefit for resected BTC patients. Fluoropyrimidines appeared the most effective option, confirming capecitabine as the preferred choice for the Western population., (© 2024 The Author(s). Liver International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: The administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is a common practice to reduce gastro-esophageal adverse events associated with drug treatments but may impair absorption and exposure to oncology drugs. This study investigated the effect of concomitant administration of PPIs and pazopanib, sunitinib and cabozantinib on survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Total 451 patients receiving pazopanib, sunitinib and cabozantinib as first line treatment were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were defined as "no concomitant PPIs (PPI-)" if no PPIs were administered during TKIs, and as "concomitant PPIs (PPI+)" if the administration of PPIs was at least 75% of the time during which TKIs were given., Results: Eighty patients administered pazopanib were PPI- and 86 PPI+; no difference in PFS was observed (10.7 vs. 11.9 months, P = .79). If patients were stratified as short (n = 89) and long (n = 77) responders, there was a significant difference in terms of PFS in PPI+ (n = 47) versus PPI- (n = 30) in long responders, being 24.7 versus 38 months (P = .04), respectively. In the sunitinib cohort, no significant difference of PFS in PPI+ (n = 102) versus PPI- (n = 131) was found, being 11.3 versus 18.1 months, respectively (P=0.15). In the cabozantinib cohort, there was a statistically significant difference in PFS of PPI+ versus PPI- (6 months vs. not reached, P = .04). No correlation with adverse events was found., Conclusions: This study demonstrates an association between PPIs and impaired PFS in mRCC patients given pazopanib and cabozantinib and recommends caution on their concomitant use., Competing Interests: Disclosure CP acted as a consultant and/or a speaker for Angelini Pharma, Biorek, BMS, Eisai, General Electric, Ipsen, Medendi, and MSD, and as a protocol steering committee member for BMS, Eisai, and MSD. MR received honoraria as a speaker/consultant by Astra Zeneca, MSD, BMS, Janssen, Merck and Gilead. MDR received fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Bio-Rad, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, and Ipsen; RD reports receiving speaker bureau/advisor's fee from Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Gilead, Lilly, Gilead, and EUSA Pharma. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Adjuvant ovarian function suppression (OFS) with oral endocrine therapy improves outcomes for premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer but adds adverse effects. A genomic biomarker for selecting patients most likely to benefit from OFS-based treatment is lacking., Objective: To assess the predictive and prognostic performance of the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) for OFS benefit in premenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective-retrospective translational study used all available tumor tissue samples from female patients from the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT). These individuals were randomized to receive 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS. BCI testing was performed blinded to clinical data and outcome. The a priori hypothesis was that BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])-high tumors would benefit more from OFS and high BCI portended poorer prognosis in this population. Settings spanned multiple centers internationally. Participants included premenopausal female patients with HR+ early breast cancer with specimens in the International Breast Cancer Study Group tumor repository available for RNA extraction. Data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021 and were analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) for the predictive analysis and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) for the prognostic analyses., Results: Tumor specimens were available for 1718 of the 3047 female patients in the SOFT intention-to-treat population. The 1687 patients (98.2%) who had specimens that yielded sufficient RNA for BCI testing represented the parent trial population. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 12 (10.5-13.4) years, and 512 patients (30.3%) were younger than 40 years. Tumors were BCI(H/I)-low for 972 patients (57.6%) and BCI(H/I)-high for 715 patients (42.4%). Patients with tumors classified as BCI(H/I)-low exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33-0.71]) and an absolute benefit of 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.97]) relative to tamoxifen alone. In contrast, patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.70-1.53]; P for interaction = .006) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.72-1.54]; P for interaction = .11) compared with tamoxifen alone. BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the N0 subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P = .004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk N0 cancers, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective-retrospective translational study of patients enrolled in SOFT, BCI was confirmed as prognostic in premenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer. The benefit from OFS-containing adjuvant endocrine therapy was greater for patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors than BCI(H/I)-high tumors. BCI(H/I)-low status may identify premenopausal patients who are likely to benefit from this more intensive endocrine therapy.

Background: Most premenopausal patients with early breast cancer (eBC) are diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive disease and therefore candidate for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET)., Patients and Methods: The Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) 23-POSTER (GIM23) is a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 26 Italian institutions, aiming to evaluate ET choices for premenopausal patients affected by hormone receptor-positive eBC in a real-world setting. Here we report also the results in terms of type of ET prescribed according to the definition of high-risk patients by monarchE and NATALEE trials., Results: Between October 2019 and June 2022, 600 premenopausal patients were included, with a median age of 46 years. Almost half (271, 45.2 %) of the patients had stage I disease, while 254 (42.3 %) and 60 (10.0 %) patients had stage II and III, respectively. Overall, 149 (25.1 %) patients received tamoxifen alone, 83 (14.0 %) tamoxifen with ovarian function suppression (OFS), while 361 (60.9 %) received aromatase inhibitor (AI) with OFS. Patients treated with AI and OFS had higher number of metastatic axillary nodes, higher grade and more often received chemotherapy (all p < 0.001). According to the inclusion criteria of the monarchE and NATALEE trials, 81 patients (15.6 %) were considered high-risk for the monarchE and received AI with OFS in 88.9 % of the cases, while 231 patients (44.4 %) were considered high-risk for the NATALEE trial and received AI with OFS in 74.5 % of cases., Conclusions: AI with OFS is the most prescribed adjuvant ET among premenopausal patients, especially in the presence of high-risk features., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Eva Blondeaux: speaker fee from Eli Lilly and research support from Gilead Science (to the institution). Valentina Guarneri: personal fees from EliLilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, MSD, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck Serono, and Eisai outside the submitted work. Eleonora Mioranza: personal fee from Novartis e Lilly. Fabio Puglisi: advisory role for and receiving speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Ipsen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Takeda, and Viatris. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis, Roche. Research grants (to his institution) from Astrazeneca, Eisai, Roche. Antonella Ferro: support for attending meeting from Gilead, MSD and Pfizer; honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Ely Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Astra Zeneca, MSD. Vincenzo Adamo: consultancy/advisory role/speaker bureau from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sevier, Takeda. Laura Biganzoli: Personal financial interests (Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role): Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, SeaGen. Institutional financial interests: Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis. Travel grant: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo. Evandro de Azambuja: honoraria from or participation in advisory boards for Roche, Genentech, Novartis, SeaGen, Zodiac, Libbs, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Francesca Poggio: fees and other support from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Daichii Sankyo, and Gilead outside the submitted work. Matteo Lambertini: advisory role for Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, and Exact Sciences; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Knight, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; receiving travel grants from Gilead and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving research funding (to his institution) from Gilead. Lucia Del Mastro: grants from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre; receiving consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Gilead, and Daiichi Sankyo; receiving speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Ipsen, GSK, and Agendia-Stemline; receiving travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca; and having an advisory role for Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sakyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Agendia, GSK, and Seagen. All the other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pembrolizumab/Axitinib combination is approved as first-line therapy in mRCC. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes of PAXI combo in the real-world in Italy., Methods: This is a prospective study including patients diagnosed with mRCC who received combination as first-line therapy in recruiting Italian Centers. Data about patient characteristics, safety and outcome were collected., Results: 170 pts have been treated from December 2020 to September 2023. The majority had clear-cell histology (83%). Sarcomatoid feature was present in 33%of available cases. About one half of patients (55%) had synchronous metastasis. In 58% of cases nephrectomy was performed, of which 27% were cytoreductive and 4% were deferred nephrectomies. Lung metastases were identified in 106 patients (62%), bone and liver involvement in 66 and 29 patients (38.8% and 17.1%) respectively. Stratifying by IMDC criteria, 32 patients (18.8%) were at favorable-risk, 106 (62.4%) at intermediate-risk, and 32 (18.8%) at poor-risk. At time of analysis, treatment was ongoing in 49% of patients. Progression occurred in 45% of patients. Median PFS was 19.2 months (95% CI: 15-NR). With a median follow-up of 19.3 months (range 1.3-34.5), at 24-months and 36-months landmark analysis 62% (95% CI, 53-70) and 58% (95% CI, 47-69) of treated patients are still alive respectively. Disease control rate was achieved in 84.6% of patients: 4.3% reached a complete response, 52% had a partial response and 28.8% a stable disease. Primary progression was observed in 15.3% of patients. In the multivariate analysis, the prognostic significance of age ≥ 65 years, non-clear cell histology, IMDC score, and adverse events and gender interaction as predictors of worse OS were confirmed., Conclusion: This is the first available prospective study on first-line Pembrolizumab/Axitinib combination in real world scenario. Our findings support the effectiveness and safety of first-line this combination in mRCC and reveal that gender emerged as a prognostic factor in relation to the occurrence of adverse events., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pioneer studies suggested that liver transplantation (LT) has the potential to provide long-term survival in patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) not amenable for surgery of metastases. Evidence, however, was limited to single-arm studies with few patients enrolled and suboptimal selection criteria, with concerns over access to organ availability overcoming the potential efficacy of LT in this setting. Recently, 5-year survival rates with chemotherapy followed by LT (73%) compared with chemotherapy alone (9%) have been demonstrated by the randomized TransMet trial, enrolling 94 definitively unresectable strictly selected liver-limited mCRC patients. These findings should now prompt clinical oncologists to reconsider LT as a valuable option for unresectable liver-limited mCRC patients meeting TransMet criteria, and transplantation agencies to adapt their policies of access to organ donation., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Recent literature suggests that rates of breast conservation surgery (BCS) are lower than expected in patients submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer. The aim of this study was to underscore the role of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) in the decision-making process of patients who underwent breast surgery after NAC., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on patients with breast cancer treated according to an algorithm developed at the Breast Unit of Northern Sardinia between January 2019 and May 2023. Data collected included demographics, tumor characteristics, upfront treatment (surgery or NAC), type of primary surgery (BCS or mastectomy [Ma]) and patients' adherence to the treatment proposed by the MDT., Results: Overall, 1061 women were treated during the study period, of whom 164 received NAC (Group A) and 897 upfront surgery (Group B). In group A, conversion from BCS ineligibility to BCS eligibility was observed in 47 patients (40.1%). Final surgery in patients who became BCS-eligible after NAC was BCS in 42 cases (89.3%) and Ma in 5 (10.6%). Rates of patients' adherence to the treatment proposed by the MDT were significantly better in the Group A (p = 0.02)., Conclusions: Our results suggest that the MDT has a pivotal role in increasing the rates of breast conservation in women submitted to NAC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: The efficacy of systemic therapy for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) has not been proven in patients with Child-Pugh (C-P) B cirrhosis. Nevertheless, in real-world these patients are treated both with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and with metronomic capecitabine (MC). This study aimed to compare sorafenib and MC outcomes versus best supportive care (BSC) in C-P B patients., Method: Between 2008 and 2020, among 774 C-P B patients with aHCC not amenable/responsive to locoregional treatments, 410 underwent sorafenib, 62 MC, and 302 BSC. The propensity score matching method was used to correct the baseline unbalanced prognostic factors., Results: In the unmatched population, median OS was 9.7 months in patients treated with sorafenib, 8.0 with MC, and 3.9 months with BSC. In sorafenib vs. BSC-matched patients (135 couples), median OS was 7.3 (4.9-9.6) vs. 3.9 (2.6-5.2) months (p<0.001). ECOG-Performance Status, tumor size, macrovascular invasion, AFP, treatment-naive, and sorafenib were independent predictors of survival. In MC vs. BSC-matched patients (40 couples), median OS was 9.0 (0.2-17.8) vs.3.0 (2.2-3.8) months (p<0.001). Median OS did not differ (p = 0.283) in sorafenib vs. MC-matched patients (55 couples)., Conclusion: C-P B patients with aHCC undergoing BSC have poor survival. Both Sorafenib and MC treatment improve their prognosis., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest GC declares consulting fees from Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; FGF (advisory board, consulting fees): AbbVie, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, MSD, and Intercept; EGG (advisory board, consulting fees): Astra Zeneca, Eisai, MSD, and Roche; GR (lectures, advisory board, consulting fees): Gilead, Alfa Wasserman, Intercept, and Eisai; FT (research grant, advisory board, consulting fees): Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, MSD, and Roche. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. PDACs are characterized by centrosome aberrations, but whether centrosome-related genes influence patient outcomes has not been tested., Methods: Publicly available RNA-sequencing data of patients diagnosed with PDAC were interrogated with unsupervised approaches to identify centrosome protein-encoding genes with prognostic relevance. Candidate genes were validated by immunohistochemistry and multiplex immunofluorescence in a set of clinical PDAC and normal pancreatic tissues., Results: Results showed that two genes CEP250 and CEP170, involved in centrosome linker and centriolar subdistal appendages, were expressed at high levels in PDAC tissues and were correlated with prognosis of PDAC patients in independent databases. Large clustered γ-tubulin-labelled centrosomes were linked together by aberrant circular and planar-shaped CEP250 arrangements in CEP250-high expressing PDACs. Furthermore, PDACs displayed prominent centrosome separation and reduced CEP164-centrosomal labelling associated with acetylated-tubulin staining compared to normal pancreatic tissues. Interestingly, in a small validation cohort, CEP250-high expressing patients had shorter disease free- and overall-survival and almost none of those who received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel first-line therapy achieved a clinical response. In contrast, weak CEP250 expression was associated with long-term survivors or responses to medical treatments., Conclusions: Alteration of the centriolar cohesion and appendages has effect on the survival of patients with PDAC., (Copyright © 2024 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Germline BRCA1-2 test is routinely recommended in Pancreatic Cancer (PC) patients, due to its clinical-epidemiological relevance. Data on the prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (gPV) in other cancer predisposition and DNA Damage Repair (DDR) system-related genes in unselected PC cases are sparce in Italy. We assessed this prevalence in a multicentre cohort, to derive recommendations for PC patients., Methods: Clinical data of 1200 consecutive PC patients, of any age and stage, tested with a multigene germline panel were collected. A descriptive analysis of gPV frequency and clinical variables was performed both in 1092 patients tested for an 18 genes core-panel (CP-18 cohort) and in 869 patients screened only for CDKN2A., Results: 11.5 % (126/1092) of CP-18 cohort patients harbored a gPV in ≥ 1 gene. Highest gPV frequencies were detected in ATM (3.1 %), BRCA2 (2.9 %), BRCA1 (1.6 %), CHEK2 (1.1 %). Patients harboring any CP-18 gene and BRCA1-2 gPV were younger and with a higher rate of personal (PH) or family history (FH) of cancer when compared to no gPV patients. The risk of having a gPV was ≥ 7 % in all subgroups of patients, including those aged > 73, with tumor stage I-III and negative FH/PH. CDKN2A gPV were detected in 2.6 % (23/869) of patients., Conclusions: A remarkable prevalence of gPV in cancer predisposition and DDR genes is reported in this large multicentre cohort of consecutive and unselected PC patients. Therefore, we recommend multigene germline testing (at least including BRCA1-2, ATM, CDKN2A, PALB2) for all PC patients, irrespective of age, stage, PH/FH., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Stefania Sciallero: Michele Reni: All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. 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.)

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with cancer. Both cancer and its treatments increase the risk of developing VTE. Specific cancer types and individual patient comorbidities increase the risk of developing cancer-associated VTE, and the risk of bleeding is increased with anticoagulation therapies. The aims of this article are to summarize the latest evidence for treating cancer-associated VTE, discuss the practical considerations involved, and share best practices for VTE treatment in patients with cancer. The article pays particular attention to challenging contexts including patients with brain, lung, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary tumors and those with hematological malignancies. Furthermore, the article summarizes specific clinical scenarios that require additional treatment considerations, including extremes of body weight, nausea and gastrointestinal disturbances, compromised renal function, and anemia, and touches upon the relevance of drug-drug interactions. Historically, vitamin K antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been used as therapy for cancer-associated VTE. The development of direct oral anticoagulants has provided additional treatment options, which, in certain instances, offer advantages over LMWHs. There are numerous factors that need to be considered when treating cancer-associated VTE, and although various treatment guidelines are helpful, they do not reflect each unique scenario that may arise in clinical practice. This article provides a summary of the latest evidence and a practical approach for treating cancer-associated VTE., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: EVC: provided consultancy services to AbbVie, Agenus, ALX, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Bexon Clinical, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharma, Elmedix, EISAI, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa Biotech, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Nordic, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Simcere, Takeda, Taiho, and Terumo. IM: received grant/research support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer; and received honoraria and travel/meeting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Leo Pharma. EF: participated on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point, and Daiichi Sankyo; received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peervoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Touch Oncology; received meeting/travel support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Roche; and is an independent member of the eboard of Grifols. GA: nothing to disclose. AA: received grant/research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche; received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi, EISAI, Genomic Health, Ipsen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi, EISAI, Genomic Health, Hengrui, Innate, Ipsen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Menarini. AC: received research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer Limited, and Sanofi; provided consultancy services to Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Centrix Healthcare, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer Limited, and Sanofi; received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Centrix Healthcare, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer Limited, and Sanofi; received meeting/travel support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Centrix Healthcare, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer Limited, and Sanofi; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or advisory board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Pfizer Limited. AF: received honoraria from Sanofi, Leo Pharma, and Werfen. MM: nothing to disclose. MP: nothing to disclose. NT: received honoraria from Vianex; and received meeting/travel support from Leo Pharma. PV: received research funding from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Leo Pharma; and received honoraria from Bayer, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo Pharma, and Anthos Therapeutics. CA: received manuscript development support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer; and provided consultancy services to and received honoraria from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Importance: Whether patients with Child-Pugh class B (CP-B) cancer with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) benefit from active anticancer treatment vs best supportive care (BSC) is debated., Objective: To evaluate the association of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies vs BSC with overall survival (OS) of patients with uHCC and CP-B liver dysfunction., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter, international clinical case series examined data of patients with CP-B with uHCC who were receiving first-line ICI-based regimens from September 2017 to December 2022 whose data were extracted from an international consortium and compared with a cohort of patients with CP-B receiving BSC. Patients were treated in tertiary care centers across Europe, US, and Asia in routine clinical practice. After applying the inclusion criteria, 187 and 156 patients were left in the ICI and BSC groups, respectively. The propensity score was calculated for the following variables: age, alpha-fetoprotein levels, Child-Pugh score, extrahepatic spread, portal vein tumor thrombosis, cirrhosis, ascites, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status., Exposures: Patients in the ICI group received first-line systemic therapy with either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) (n = 141) or nivolumab (n = 46)., Main Outcomes and Measures: OS in the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) populations was the main outcome, and it was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method; univariable Cox regression test was used to make comparisons between the 2 groups., Results: The median age was 66 (IQR, 61-72) and 73 (IQR, 66-81) years in the ICI (33 women [18%]) and BSC groups (41 women [26%]), respectively. In the IPTW populations, median OS was significantly longer in the ICI group (7.50 months; 95% CI, 5.62-11.15) compared with BSC (4.04 months; 95% CI, 3.03-5.03; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80; P < .001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that ICI exposure was associated with a reduction of approximately 50% in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.86; P < .001), and the presence of portal vein tumor thrombosis, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of greater than 1, and alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or greater were associated with increased risk of death., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this case series provide comparative evidence of improved survival in association with ICI treatment compared with BSC in patients with uHCC with CP-B liver dysfunction.

Background:  Increasing evidence suggests that diabetes increases the risk of developing different types of cancer. Hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia and chronic inflammation, characteristic of diabetes, could represent possible mechanisms involved in cancer development in diabetic patients. At the same time, cancer increases the risk of developing new-onset diabetes, mainly caused by the use of specific anticancer therapies. Of note, diabetes has been associated with a ∼10% increase in mortality for all cancers in comparison with subjects who did not have diabetes. Diabetes is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with cancer, and more recent findings suggest a key role for poor glycemic control in this regard. Nevertheless, the association between glycemic control and cancer outcomes in oncologic patients with diabetes remains unsettled and poorly debated., Purpose:  The current review seeks to summarize the available evidence on the effect of glycemic control on cancer outcomes, as well as on the possibility that timely treatment of hyperglycemia and improved glycemic control in patients with cancer and diabetes may favorably affect cancer outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Recently, in Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) setting, the use of metformin has been associated to a trend toward worse response rate, overall survival and progression free survival in patients who received immunotherapy. The study population included individuals from both Eastern and Western regions with a confirmed diagnosis of HCC and receiving first line treatment with Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by Cox proportional. For the analysis, patients were stratified based on their use of concomitant medication or not. At the time of database lock, 319 deaths were observed: 209 in the Lenvatinib cohort, 110 in the Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab cohort. In the Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab arm, 50 (16.5%) patients were on chronic metformin use. At the univariate analysis for OS, patients who used metformin showed significantly shorter OS compared to patients who did not use metformin (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in metformin group had significantly shorter OS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.1). At the univariate analysis for PFS, patients in metformin group had significantly shorter PFS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in metformin group had significantly shorter PFS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7; p = 0.0147). No differences were reported in terms of ORR and DCR between patients in metformin group and those in no-metformin group. In the Lenvatinib cohort, 65 (15%) patients were recorded to chronically use metformin. No statistically significant differences in terms of both OS and PFS were found between patients in metformin group and patients in no-metformin group. This analysis unveils a negative prognostic role associated with metformin use specifically within the Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab group., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The integration of multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) is fundamental in delivering state-of-the-art cancer treatment, facilitating collaborative diagnosis and management by a diverse team of specialists. Despite the clear benefits in personalized patient care and improved outcomes, the increasing burden on MTBs due to rising cancer incidence and financial constraints necessitates innovative solutions. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field offers a promising avenue to support clinical decision-making. This review explores the perspectives of clinicians dedicated to the care of cancer patients-surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists-on the application of AI within MTBs. Additionally, it examines the role of AI across various clinical specialties involved in cancer diagnosis and treatment. By analyzing both the potential and the challenges, this study underscores how AI can enhance multidisciplinary discussions and optimize treatment plans. The findings highlight the transformative role that AI may play in refining oncology care and sustaining the efficacy of MTBs amidst growing clinical demands.

Introduction: The molecular profile of colorectal cancer (CRC) plays a crucial role in understanding patient prognosis and treatment response. Within CRC, a distinct subgroup can be identified by the presence of the BRAF V600E mutation. This specific mutation, classified as Class I of BRAF mutations, is known to be associated with a poor prognosis and resistance to standard therapy. To determine the most effective treatment approach for this specific subgroup of CRC, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare various pharmacological interventions and evaluate their relative effectiveness in BRAF-mutated CRCs., Materials and Methods: On July 31, 2023, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) reporting of outcomes in patients with BRAF-mutated CRC who underwent first-line chemotherapy; 2) reporting of survival information as hazard ratios (HR); and 3) publication in English. The data were combined using HRs for overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS) using random-effects models. NMA was performed under the Bayesian framework, utilizing the GeMTC package. The relative rankings of the treatments were determined using SUCRA scores., Results: A total of 16 studies were included. When compared to standard chemotherapy (CT) doublets (such as FOLFOX or FOLFIRI), none of the comparison arms demonstrated a gain in OS. CT doublet + bevacizumab did not show significant superiority over either CT doublet alone or 5FU/capecitabine + bevacizumab. FOLFOXIRI and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab did not show superiority over any other treatment schedule that was compared. CT doublets + bevacizumab had the highest SUCRA score (0.87), followed by single-agent fluoropyrimidines + bevacizumab (0.61), and FOLFOXIRI (0.56). Regarding PFS, no regimen was found to be superior to the combination of CT doublet plus bevacizumab. However, FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab + atezolizumab showed a tendency towards better results (HR = 0.26, 95 % CI 0.05-1.1)., Conclusions: Our review suggests that a CT doublet with bevacizumab is the most favorable option for OS. However, a reasonable alternative could be a triplet CT without bevacizumab., 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., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Most patients receiving atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) for hepatocellular carcinoma will eventually experience disease progression. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are undergoing to identify second-line treatments. Where RCTs are unavailable or patients are non-eligible, sorafenib is often prescribed based on approval and reimbursement policies. However, evidence supporting this approach is minimal., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients who permanently discontinued AB., Methods: The ARTE database prospectively collects patients treated with AB in a real-life setting. We analysed the outcome of patients who received sorafenib as second-line treatment., Results: Amongst 213 patients, 130 (61.0 %) permanently discontinued AB. Of them, 54 received second- line treatments, and sorafenib was prescribed in 40 patients. The disease control rate (DCR) was 10.0 %. The median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival were 3.3 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.7-3.9) and 6.9 months (95 % CI 2.7-11.1), respectively., Conclusions: In patients progressing under AB, the efficacy of sorafenib on different outcomes is limited., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest FT: Consultant for Ipsen, Roche, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Bayer; AG: consultant for Bayer; FM: Consultant for Ipsen, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Bayer; BD: consultant for Astrazeneca, IPSEN, EISAI, MSD, Roche, Amgen, Incyte, Sanofi; FP: honoraria for lecturing or advisory boards from Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bracco, ESAOTE, EISAI, Exact Sciences, IPSEN, MSD, Roche, Samsung, Siemens Healthineers. The other authors have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Extracellular acyl-coenzyme A binding protein [ACBP encoded by diazepam binding inhibitor (DBI)] is a phylogenetically ancient appetite stimulator that is secreted in a nonconventional, autophagy-dependent fashion. Here, we show that low ACBP/DBI plasma concentrations are associated with poor prognosis in patients with anorexia nervosa, a frequent and often intractable eating disorder. In mice, anorexia induced by chronic restraint stress (CRS) is accompanied by a reduction in circulating ACBP/DBI concentrations. We engineered a chemical-genetic system for the secretion of ACBP/DBI through a biotin-activatable, autophagy-independent pathway. In transgenic mice expressing this system in hepatocytes, biotin-induced elevations in plasma ACBP/DBI concentrations prevented anorexia induced by CRS or chemotherapeutic agents including cisplatin, doxorubicin, and paclitaxel. ACBP/DBI reversed the CRS or cisplatin-induced increase in plasma lipocalin-2 concentrations and the hypothalamic activation of anorexigenic melanocortin 4 receptors, for which lipocalin-2 is an agonist. Daily intravenous injections of recombinant ACBP/DBI protein or subcutaneous implantation of osmotic pumps releasing recombinant ACBP/DBI mimicked the orexigenic effects of the chemical-genetic system. In conclusion, the supplementation of extracellular and peripheral ACBP/DBI might constitute a viable strategy for treating anorexia.

Guidelines historically recommended mono-chemotherapy for the 1 st line treatment of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status (PS). Nowadays, there is no clear indication whether chemo-immunotherapy (chemo-IO) combinations can be effectively delivered in this population. We collected induction chemotherapy data in consecutive patients with advanced NSCLC treated with carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens plus pembrolizumab, to compute the received dose intensity (RDI) from standard regimens or patient-tailored regimens modified due to age, comorbidities and PS. Comorbidities were stratified according to the comorbidity-polypharmacy score (CPS). The established cut-off of ≥85% for RDI was used to define adequate delivery. 116 pts were treated from Feb-20 to July-23, of whom 96 and 20 with non-squamous and squamous NSCLC, treated with carboplatin-pemetrexed or carboplatin-paclitaxel doublets plus pembrolizumab, respectively. The majority of patients were aged ≥ 70 years (52.6%), the median CPS was 5, with 58.6% having a CPS ≥5, whilst 47.4%, 44.8% and 7.8% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) - PS of 0, 1 and 2, respectively. PD-L1 TPS were <1% in 31.9% and 1-49% in 65.4%. Overall, 47.4% received a priori modified regimens due to poor PS, age, or comorbidities. Among patients with non-squamous NSCLC, median received doses of carboplatin and pemetrexed were 1.37 AUC/week and 138.8 mg/m 2 /week, with RDIs of 86% and 75% ( p  < 0.01) for patients treated with standard or modified regimens, respectively. Of note, the RDI was 57.9% among patients with ECOG-PS 2. However, patients treated with modified regimens experienced similar toxicities as those treated with standard regimens, despite being older ( p  < 0.01), with higher PS ( p  < 0.01) and more comorbid ( p  = 0.03). Patients treated with modified regimens achieved a shorter survival (7.1 vs 13.9 months), which is comparable to IO-free historical controls. Among patients with squamous NSCLC, 90% received modified regimens upfront, with median received doses of carboplatin and paclitaxel of 1.19 AUC/week and 40 mg/m 2 /week, and an overall RDI of 73.5%. Although regimen modifications ensure a safe administration of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in frail patients, the RDI seems to be subtherapeutic, especially in those with squamous histology. Dedicated trials are needed to implement combination strategies in this population.

In locally advanced (LA) laryngeal/hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LHSCC), larynx preservation (LP) strategies aim at the cure of the disease while preserving a functional larynx, thus avoiding total laryngectomy and the associated impact on the quality of life. In the last decades, apart from transoral and open-neck organ preservation approaches, several non-surgical regimens have been investigated: radiotherapy alone, alternate, concurrent or sequential chemoradiation, and bioradiotherapy. Despite major progress, the identification of reliable and effective predictors for treatment response remains a clinical challenge. This review examines the current state of LP in LA-LHSCC and the need for predictive factors, highlighting the importance of the PRESERVE trial in addressing this gap. The PRESERVE trial represents a pivotal initiative aimed at finding the optimal therapy for laryngeal preservation specific to each patient through a retrospective analysis of data from previous LP trials and prospectively validating findings. The goal of the PRESERVE trial is to develop a comprehensive predictive classifier that integrates clinical, molecular, and multi-omics data, thereby enhancing the precision and efficacy of patient selection for LP protocols., Competing Interests: PB: participation in an advisory board or conference honoraria for: Merck, Sanofi-Regeneron, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merus, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Angelini, Nestlè. MP: Eisai, Invited Speaker, MSD, Invited Speaker, Travel grants. 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 © 2024 Mattavelli, Wichmann, Smussi, Paderno, Plana, Mesia, Compagnoni, Medda, Chiocca, Calza, Zhan, Rognoni, Tarricone, Stucchi, Lorini, Gurizzan, Khelik, Hovig, Dietz, Piazza and Bossi.)

Objective: The uPath PD-L1 (SP263) is an AI-based platform designed to aid pathologists in identifying and quantifying PD-L1 positive tumor cells in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples stained with the SP263 assay., Methods: In this preliminary study, we explored the diagnostic performance of the uPath PD-L1 algorithm in defining PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) and predict clinical outcomes in a series of patients with advanced stage NSCLC treated with single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade previously assessed with the SP263 assay in clinical practice., Results: 44 patients treated from August 2015 to January 2019 were included, with baseline PD-L1 TPS of ≥ 50%, 1-49% and < 1% in 38.6%, 25.0% and 36.4%, respectively. The median uPath PD-L1 score was 6 with a significant correlation with the baseline PD-L1 TPS (r: 0.83, p < 0.01). However, only 27 cases (61.4%) were scored within the same clinically relevant range of expression (≥ vs < 50%). In the study population the baseline PD-L1 TPS was not significantly associated with clinical outcomes, while the uPath PD-L1 score showed a good diagnostic ability for the risk of death at the ROC curve analysis [AUC: 0.81 (95%CI: 0.66-0.91), optimal cut-off of ≥ 3.2], resulting in 19 patients (43.2%) being u-Path low and 25 patients (56.8%) being uPath high. The objective response rate in uPath high and low was 51.6% and 25.0% (p = 0.1), respectively, although the uPath was significantly associated with overall survival (OS, HR 2.45, 95%CI: 1.19-5.05) and progression free survival (PFS, HR 3.04, 95%CI: 1.51-6.14). At the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis used to balance baseline covariates, the uPath categories confirmed to be independently associated with OS and PFS., Conclusions: This preliminary analysis suggests that AI-based, digital pathology tools such as uPath PD-L1 (SP263) can be used to optimize already available biomarkers for immune-oncology treatment in patients with NSCLC., (Copyright © 2024 Società Italiana di Anatomia Patologica e Citopatologia Diagnostica, Divisione Italiana della International Academy of Pathology.)