Search

Background: The clinical value of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- breast cancer (BC) may be unearthed by focusing on more biologically aggressive tumors. Here we deepen and describe the correlation between RS and TILs, proposing an immuno-genomic model for HR+ /HER2- BC., Methods: We enrolled T1-T3, N0-N1 BC patients with available RS® and TILs in the context of four multicenter, prospective studies. RS® and TILs were considered as continuous and categorical variables. RS® was categorized into: 0-10 (low risk), 11-25 (intermediate risk) and 26-100 (high risk); TILs were categorized into: low TILs (0-10%), intermediate TILs (11-59%) and high TILs (60-100%)., Results: 811 patients were included. RS distribution was (n = 810): low risk 22.0%, intermediate risk 61.2%, high risk 16.8%. TIL distribution was (n = 455): low TILs 84.6%, intermediate TILs 13.6% and high TILs 1.8%. A significant, weak positive, linear correlation was found between continuous TILs and RS (Pearson coefficient=0.223, p < 0.001). When considering RS and TILs categories, tumors with intermediate/high TIL levels significantly enriched the high RS subgroup (p = 0.006). This was confirmed both within Luminal A and Luminal B cohorts. Among high-RS patients, 16.7% of Luminal A and 26.7% of Luminal B tumors had intermediate/high TILs., Conclusions: We observed that RS® and TILs capture only slightly overlapping information on the biology of HR+ /HER2- tumor microenvironment. We demonstrated the feasibility of combining RS and TILs into a composite immuno-genomic model, which may serve the purpose of guiding and focalizing patient selection in the further development of immunotherapy strategies for Luminal-like disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest FM: reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Gilead, Seagen, Pfizer, outside the submitted work. MVD: reports personal fees from EliLilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, MSD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche outside of the submitted work. TG: reports personal fees from Gilead, Roche, outside the submitted work. MG: Consulting/Advisor: Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, MSD, Eisai; Honoraria: Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo; Research funding to the Institution: AstraZeneca; Travel, accommodation, expenses: Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. MM: personal fees from Accord, Gentili, Novartis, Lilly. EB: received speakers’ and travels’ fee from MSD, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis and Roche. AZ: reports personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Eli-Lilly, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Roche, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Gilead, all disclosures are outside the submitted work. VG: reports personal fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Olema Oncology, Pierre Fabre; personal fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Roche and Zentiva; personal fees for expert testimony for Eli Lilly. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and Sars-Cov-2 infection from the Veneto Oncology Network registry across two pandemic time periods., Materials and Methods: 761 patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were included., Results: 198 patients were diagnosed during the first pandemic time period (TP1; February 2020 September 2020), 494 during TP2 before the vaccination campaign (TP2/pre-vaccination; September 2020-21 February 2021) and 69 in TP2/post-vaccination (22 February 2021-15 May 2021). TP2 vs TP1 patients were younger (p = 0.004), showed more frequently a good performance status (p < 0.001) and <2 comorbidities (p = 0.002), were more likely to be on active anticancer therapy (p = 0.006). Significantly fewer patients in TP2 (3-4%) vs TP1 (22%) had an in-hospital potential source of infection (p < 0.001). TP2 patients were more frequently asymptomatic (p = 0.003). Significantly fewer patients from TP2 were hospitalized (p < 0.001) or admitted to intensive care unit (p = 0.006). All-cause mortality decreased from 30.3% in TP1, to 8.9% and 8.7% in the two TP2 periods (p < 0.001), reflected by a significant reduction in Sars-Cov-2-related mortality (15.2%, 7.5% and 5.8% in the three consecutive time periods, p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Differences in clinical characteristics and features of Sars-Cov-2 infection between TP1 and TP2 reflect the effects of protective measures and increased testing capacity. The lower mortality in TP2 is in line with a less frail population. However, the vast majority of death events in TP2 were related to COVID-19, reinforcing the priority to protect cancer patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite endocrine therapy being the mainstay of treatment for hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, patients at risk of visceral crisis or doubt for endocrine sensitivity are still offered first-line chemotherapy. Maintenance hormonal therapy is generally offered at the discontinuation of chemotherapy. The MAINtenance Afinitor study is a randomised, phase III trial comparing maintenance everolimus combined with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) versus AI monotherapy in patients with disease control after first-line chemotherapy., Methods: Patients with stable disease, partial response or complete response after first-line chemotherapy were randomised to everolimus plus AIs (exemestane or letrozole or anastrozole) or to AIs alone. Primary aim was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary aims included response rate, safety and overall survival (OS)., Results: In total, 110 patients were randomised to everolimus + AIs (n = 52) or to AIs (n = 58). Median PFS was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.1-13.8) in the everolimus + AI arm and 7.2 months (95% CI 4.7-10.9) in the AI monotherapy arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.06). Objective response rate was 22.4% in everolimus + AI arm and 19.2% in AI monotherapy arm. A higher proportion of disease progression as best response was reported in the AI monotherapy arm (28.8% versus 14.3%). Median OS was 35.7 months (95% CI 26.0-47.8) in the combination arm versus 33.5 (95% CI 26.4-42.7) in the AI alone arm (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.61-1.62)., Conclusions: EVE + AIs did not significantly impact on the outcome of metastatic breast cancer patients deemed suitable for first-line chemotherapy. Also taking into account treatment tolerability, maintenance endocrine therapy remains the standard., Trial Registration: EudraCT: 2013-004153-24., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement VG reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly and MSD outside the submitted work. CAG reports personal fees from Novartis outside the submitted work. SC reports personal fees from Lilly Oncology outside the submitted work. AF reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi and Seagen outside the submitted work. CZ reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Pfizer; grants and personal fees from Amgen and Tesaro; personal fees from QuintilesIMS; and grants from Eisai, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Istituto Gentili, Takeda, TEVA, Medivation, AbbVie, Array BioPharma, Morphotek, Synthon, Seattle Genetics, Lilly and Celgene outside the submitted work. CDR reports personal fees from BMS and Novartis outside the submitted work. VA reports personal fees from Novartis outside the submitted work. AF reports personal fees from Novartis and Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. AZ reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck, Daiichi-Sankyo and Genomic Health outside the submitted work. OG reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, Eisai, MSD, Pfizer, Celgene and Roche outside the submitted work. MVD reports personal fees from Eli Lilly, Genomic Health, Celgene and Novartis outside the submitted work. PC reports personal fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, BMS and Roche outside the submitted work. The other 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 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The Cher-LOB randomised phase II study showed that the combination of lapatinib-trastuzumab plus chemotherapy increases pathologic complete response (pCR) rate compared with chemotherapy plus either trastuzumab or lapatinib. Here, we report the post hoc survival analysis as per treatment arm, pCR and biomarkers., Methods: The Cher-LOB study randomised 121 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, stage II-IIIA breast cancer. A specific protocol to collect recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data was designed. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PAM50-intrinsic subtyping were evaluated at baseline., Results: At 9-year median follow-up, a trend towards RFS improvement with lapatinib-trastuzumab over trastuzumab was observed (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-1.05). Combining treatment arms, pCR was significantly associated with both RFS (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.49) and OS (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.49). TILs were significantly associated with RFS (HR = 0.978 for each 1% increment). Luminal-A subtype was a significant and independent predictor of improved RFS as compared with other PAM50-based intrinsic subtypes at the multivariate analysis including the most relevant clinicopathologic variables (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.94, p = 0.040)., Conclusions: Cher-LOB trial survival analysis confirmed the prognostic role of pCR and TILs and showed a signal for a better outcome with lapatinib-trastuzumab over trastuzumab., Trial Registration: NCT00429299., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement V.G. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly and MSD outside the submitted work. D.G.G. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Pierre Fabre, all outside the submitted work. A.F. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi and Seagen, all outside the submitted work. L.G. reports honoraria for lectures and ad boards from Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work, reports travel accommodation and expenses from Novartis and Daiichi Sankyo and is an uncompensated member of the Olympia steering committee. A.M. reports grants and personal fees from Roche and Eisai; personal fees from Lilly, MacroGenics and Novartis and grants from Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. S.C. reports personal fees from Lilly Oncology outside the submitted work. A.P. reports grants and personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), PUMA Biotechnology, Novartis and Nanostring Technologies, personal fees from Seattle Genetics, Lilly, Pfizer, Guardant Health, Oncolytics Biotech and Abbvie, all outside the submitted work, and a patent (WO2018/103834A1) licensed to Nanostring Technologies, a patent (WO/2018/096191) issued. M.V.D. reports personal fees from Lilly, Genomic Health, Novartis and Celgene, all outside the submitted work. P.F.C. reports personal fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, BMS and Roche, all outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic started in Italy with clusters identified in Northern Italy. The Veneto Oncology Network (Rete Oncologica Veneta) licenced dedicated guidelines to ensure proper care minimising the risk of infection in patients with cancer. Rete Oncologica Veneta covID19 (ROVID) is a regional registry aimed at describing epidemiology and clinical course of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with cancer., Materials and Methods: Patients with cancer diagnosis and documented SARS-CoV-2 infection are eligible. Data on cancer diagnosis, comorbidities, anticancer treatments, as well as details on SARS-CoV-2 infection (hospitalisation, treatments, fate of the infection), have been recorded. Logistic regression analysis was applied to calculate the association between clinical/laboratory variables and death from any cause., Results: One hundred seventy patients have been enrolled. The median age at time of the SARS-CoV infection was 70 years (25-92). The most common cancer type was breast cancer (n = 40). The majority of the patients had stage IV disease. Half of the patients had two or more comorbidities. The majority of the patients (78%) presented with COVID-19 symptoms. More than 77% of the patients were hospitalized and 6% were admitted to intensive care units. Overall, 104 patients have documented resolution of the infection. Fifty-seven patients (33%) have died. In 29 cases (17%), the cause of death was directly correlated to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Factors significantly correlated with the risk of death were the following: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS), age, presence of two or more comorbidities, presence of dyspnoea, COVID-19 phenotype ≥ 3, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and thrombocytopenia., Conclusions: The mortality rate reported in this confirms the frailty of this population. These data reinforce the need to protect patients with cancer from SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement 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 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are an established prognostic biomarker for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We evaluated the role of programmed cell-death ligand-1 (PD-L1), CD8 and FOXP3 expression in refining a prognostic model for non-metastatic TNBC beyond classic factors and TILs., Methods: Primary tumour samples from 244 early patients with TNBC, all treated with surgery and chemotherapy, were collected. Stromal TILs were evaluated on haematoxylin-eosin slides according to guidelines. PD-L1, CD8 and FOXP3 were assessed by immunohistochemistry and evaluated by digital pathology., Results: TILs, PD-L1, CD8 and FOXP3 were positively correlated with each other (P < 0.001). TILs were confirmed as an independent prognostic factor. When PD-L1, CD8 and FOXP3 were added to multivariable models including classic factors (age, stage, histologic grade) and TILs, PD-L1 provided the largest amount of additional prognostic information: likelihood ratio χ 2 4.60, P = 0.032 (in a model including classic factors and TILs 10% increments) and likelihood ratio χ 2 6.50, P = 0.011 (in a model including classic factors and TILs >30% versus <30%). In the subset of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, FOXP3 provided further prognostic information beyond classic factors, TILs and pathological complete response (pCR) (likelihood ratio χ 2 5.01, P = 0.025). For patients who did not achieve a pCR, the expression of CD8 and PD-L1 was significantly increased from baseline to residual disease., Conclusions: Beyond clinicopathological factors and TILs, other immune biomarkers may add prognostic information for early TNBC. The increased PD-L1 expression on residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy strengthens the rationale of testing immune checkpoint inhibitors in the post-neoadjuvant setting., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The prognosis of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is dismal and new effective therapies are needed. Immunotherapy looks promising, but no molecular predictive markers are currently available, and data on immune microenvironment are very limited., Methods: We retrospectively analysed 104 SCLC cases. Immunohistochemistry evaluation of PD-L1 was performed both on tumour cells (TCs) and on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (TIICs) by using anti-PD-L1 22C3 antibody (DAKO) and categorised by using 1% as cut-off point. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were characterised by using anti-CD8 and anti-FOXP3 antibodies. Semi-quantitative score was used and categorised as positive versus negative/low. The relation of molecular markers with prognosis and with clinical variables was evaluated., Results: The analysis included 66 stage I-III patients (48 surgically resected, 18 treated with radical-intent chemoradiotherapy) and 38 metastatic cases. In the overall study population, PD-L1 was expressed on TCs and TIICs in 25% and 40% of cases, respectively. The proportion of PD-L1-positive cases was significantly higher in stage I-III versus metastatic patients (32% versus 13%, p: 0.034 for TCs; 51.5% versus 21% for TIICs, p: 0.002). CD8- and FOXP3-positive TILs were present in 59% and 72% of samples, respectively. The presence of FOXP3-TILs was associated with improved prognosis among non-metastatic patients, with a hazard ratio for survival of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.7, p: 0.006) for univariate analysis, and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.17-0.81, p: 0.013) for multivariate analysis., Conclusions: Immune contexture of SCLC may differ according to stage. The presence of FOXP3-positive TILs is a potential prognostic marker for stage I-III SCLCs and warrants further investigation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)