Search

Abstract Background Bevacizumab (BEV) plus triplet chemotherapy can increase efficacy of first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), particularly integrated with secondary liver surgery in liver-limited (L-L) patients. The prognostic value of the KRAS genotype in L-L and other or multiple metastatic (O/MM) MCRC patients treated with the FIr-B/FOx regimen was retrospectively evaluated. Methods Tumoral and metastatic samples were screened for KRAS codon 12 and 13 and BRAF mutations by SNaPshot and/or direct sequencing. Fit MCRC patients 2, days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22 and 23; irinotecan (CPT-11) 160 mg/m2 plus BEV 5 mg/kg, days 1, 15; oxaliplatin (OXP) 80 mg/m2, days 8, 22; every 4 weeks. MCRC patients were classified as L-L and O/MM. Activity and efficacy were evaluated and compared using log-rank test. Results In all, 59 patients were evaluated: 31 KRAS wild-type (53%), 28 KRAS mutant (47%). At 21.5 months median follow-up, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were, respectively: KRAS wild-type 90%, 14 months, 38 months; KRAS mutant 67%, 11 months, 20 months. PFS and OS were not significantly different. PFS and OS were significantly different in L-L compared to O/MM evaluable patients. In KRAS wild-type patients, clinical outcome of 12 L-L compared to 18 O/MM was significantly different: PFS 21 versus 12 months and OS 47 versus 28 months, respectively. In KRAS mutant patients, the clinical outcome of 13 L-L compared to 14 O/MM was not significantly different: PFS 11 months equivalently and OS 39 versus 19 months, respectively. Conclusions The KRAS genotype wild-type and mutant does not significantly affect different clinical outcomes for MCRC patients treated with the first-line FIr-B/FOx intensive regimen. KRAS wild-type patients with L-L disease may achieve a significantly prolonged clinical outcome due to integration with secondary liver surgery, with respect to KRAS mutant patients.

Abstract Background This phase II study investigated efficacy and safety of weekly alternating Bevacizumab (BEV)/Irinotecan (CPT-11) or Oxaliplatin (OHP) associated to weekly 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCRC). Methods Simon two-step design: delta 20% (p0 50%, p1 70%), power 80%, α 5%, β 20%. Projected objective responses (ORR): I step, 8/15 patients (pts); II step 26/43 pts. Schedule: weekly 12 h-timed-flat-infusion/5-FU 900 mg/m2, days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23; CPT-11 160 mg/m2 plus BEV 5 mg/kg, days 1,15; OHP at three dose-levels, 60-70-80 mg/m2, days 8, 22; every 4 weeks. Results Fifty consecutive, unselected pts < 75 years were enrolled: median age 63; young-elderly (yE) 24 (48%); liver metastases (LM) 33 pts, 66% Achieved OHP recommended dose, 80 mg/m2. ORR 82% intent-to-treat and 84% as-treated analysis. Median progression-free survival 12 months. Equivalent efficacy was obtained in yE pts. Liver metastasectomies were performed in 26% of all pts and in 39% of pts with LM. After a median follow-up of 21 months, median overall survival was 28 months. Cumulative G3-4 toxicities per patient: diarrhea 28%, mucositis 6%, neutropenia 10%, hypertension 2%. They were equivalent in yE pts. Limiting toxicity syndromes (LTS), consisting of the dose-limiting toxicity, associated or not to G2 or limiting toxicities: 44% overall, 46% in yE. Multiple versus single site LTS, respectively: overall, 24% versus 20%; yE pts, 37.5% versus 8%. Conclusion Poker combination shows high activity and efficacy in first line treatment of MCRC. It increases liver metastasectomies rate and can be safely administered. Trial registration Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Sperimentazione Clinica dei Medicinali (OsSC) Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) Numero EudraCT 2007-004946-34

In the rapidly evolving field of genomics, understanding the genetic basis of complex diseases like breast cancer, particularly its familial/hereditary forms, is crucial. Current methods often examine genomic variants-such as Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs), insertions/deletions (Indels), and Copy Number Variations (CNVs)-separately, lacking an integrated approach. Here, we introduced a robust, flexible methodology for a comprehensive variants' analysis using Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) data. Our approach uniquely combines meticulous validation with an effective variant filtering strategy. By reanalyzing two germline WES datasets from BRCA1/2 negative breast cancer patients, we demonstrated our tool's efficiency and adaptability, uncovering both known and novel variants. This contributed new insights for potential diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic strategies. Our method stands out for its comprehensive inclusion of key genomic variants in a unified analysis, and its practical resolution of technical challenges, offering a pioneering solution in genomic research. This tool presents a breakthrough in providing detailed insights into the genetic alterations in genomes, with significant implications for understanding and managing hereditary breast cancer., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics.)

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is responsible for approximately 10% of breast cancers (BCs). The HBOC gene panel includes both high-risk genes, i.e., a four times higher risk of BC ( BRCA1 , BRCA2 , PALB2 , CDH1 , PTEN , STK11 and TP53 ), and moderate-risk genes, i.e., a two to four times higher risk of BC ( BARD1 , CHEK2 , RAD51C , RAD51D and ATM ). Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in HBOC genes confer an absolute risk of BC that changes according to the gene considered. We illustrate and compare different BC risk estimation models, also describing their limitations. These models allow us to identify women eligible for genetic testing and possibly to offer surgical strategies for primary prevention, i.e., risk-reducing mastectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies.

Purpose: No evidence exists as to whether type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) impairs clinical outcome from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with solid tumors., Experimental Design: In a large cohort of ICI recipients treated at 21 institutions from June 2014 to June 2020, we studied whether patients on glucose-lowering medications (GLM) for T2DM had shorter overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We used targeted transcriptomics in a subset of patients to explore differences in the tumor microenvironment (TME) of patients with or without diabetes., Results: A total of 1,395 patients were included. Primary tumors included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 54.7%), melanoma (24.7%), renal cell (15.0%), and other carcinomas (5.6%). After multivariable analysis, patients on GLM (n = 226, 16.2%) displayed an increased risk of death [HR, 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI),1.07-1.56] and disease progression/death (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43) independent of number of GLM received. We matched 92 metformin-exposed patients with 363 controls and 78 patients on other oral GLM or insulin with 299 control patients. Exposure to metformin, but not other GLM, was associated with an increased risk of death (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03) and disease progression/death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.04-1.72). Patients with T2DM with higher pretreatment glycemia had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.04), while exploratory tumoral transcriptomic profiling in a subset of patients (n = 22) revealed differential regulation of innate and adaptive immune pathways in patients with T2DM., Conclusions: In this study, patients on GLM experienced worse outcomes from immunotherapy, independent of baseline features. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the relative impact of metformin over a preexisting diagnosis of T2DM in influencing poorer outcomes in this population., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized CREATE-X study, carried out in Asian patients and including a small subset of triple negative tumors. Thus far, evidence on Caucasian patients is limited, and no real-world data are available., Methods: We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years., Results: Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles., Conclusion: The CaRe study shows an unexpectedly good tolerance of adjuvant capecitabine in a real-world setting, although effectiveness appears to be lower than that observed in the CREATE-X study. Methodological differences between the two studies impose significant limits to comparability concerning effectiveness, and strongly invite further research., Competing Interests: LP received speaker fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. UDG: Pfizer, BMS, MSD, PharmaMAR, AStellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis; Invited speaker Roche, BMS, SAnofi, AstraZeneca; received research grants from AstraZeneca, SAnofi, Roche, outside the submitted work. AF received honoraria as a speaker from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GT: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. DS: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. NLV: Roche, MSD, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Dephaforum, outside the submitted work. OG: Eisai, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. IM: advisory boards from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gentili, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GD’A: Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. MPi Consultant/advisory boards from Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, MSD, outside the submitted work. RB received research grant/advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Eisai, outside the submitted work. FGi: advisory boards from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, outside the submitted work. MEC consultant/advisory role for Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, outside the submitted work. RT: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Exact Science, outside the submitted work. AB: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche outside the submitted work. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees/advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre-Fabre. LG received congress travel accomodation from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis; advisory role for Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. MMin: Novartis, MSD, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EC: Astellas, Roche, BMS, Jansen, MSD, Sirtex, Merck, Bayer, Servier, Novartis, outside the submitted work. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche, Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre and Incyte, outside the submitted work. PV received speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Di Lisa, Krasniqi, Pizzuti, Barba, Cannita, De Giorgi, Borella, Foglietta, Cariello, Ferro, Picardo, Mitidieri, Sini, Stani, Tonini, Santini, La Verde, Gambaro, Grassadonia, Tinari, Garrone, Sarobba, Livi, Meattini, D’Auria, Vergati, Gamucci, Pistelli, Berardi, Risi, Giotta, Lorusso, Rinaldi, Artale, Cazzaniga, Zustovich, Cappuzzo, Landi, Torrisi, Scagnoli, Botticelli, Michelotti, Fratini, Saltarelli, Paris, Muratore, Cassano, Gianni, Gaspari, Veltri, Zoratto, Fiorio, Fabbri, Mazzotta, Ruggeri, Pedersini, Valerio, Filomeno, Minelli, Scavina, Raffaele, Astone, De Vita, Pozzi, Riccardi, Greco, Moscetti, Giordano, Maugeri-Saccà, Zennaro, Botti, Pelle, Cappelli, Cavicchi, Vizza, Sanguineti, Tomao, Cortesi, Marchetti, Tomao, Speranza, Sperduti, Ciliberto and Vici.)

Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are multidisciplinary groups that combine molecular and clinical data from cancer patients in order to formulate treatment recommendations for precision medicine. To date, there is insufficient data to support the use of singleplex or next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies to select first-line therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but considering the high number of level II alterations, according to the ESMO scale for clinical actionability of molecular targets (ESCAT), it is suggested to include patients in molecular screening programs in order to be able to offer targeted therapies for specific genomic alterations. This article aims at reviewing the most recent literature related to the most used methodologies/approaches for molecular diagnostics and variants' classification, summarizing the internationally published molecular screening studies in support of MTB activity and, in the end, discussing MTBs' current position and role in Italy, the number of which is increasing, also thanks to the thrust of institutions.

HER2 is considered one of the most traditional prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer. Literature data confirmed that the addition of pertuzumab to a standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy backbone (either with or without anthracyclines), in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (EBC), leads to a higher pathological complete response (pCR) rate, which is known to correlate with a better prognosis. In this retrospective analysis, 47 consecutive patients with HER2-positive EBC received sequential anthracyclines and taxanes plus trastuzumab (ATH) or pertuzumab, trastuzumab and docetaxel (THP). Despite the limited sample size, this monocentric experience highlights the efficacy (in terms of pCR) and safety of THP in the neoadjuvant setting of HER2-positive EBC as an anthracycline-free approach. Given the role of PIK3CA as a prognostic and therapeutic target in breast cancer, tumors were also analyzed to assess the PIK3CA mutational status. Thirty-eight out of forty-seven patients were evaluated, and PIK3CA variants were identified in 21% of tumor samples: overall, one mutation was detected in exon 4 (2.6%), two in exon 9 (5.3%) and four in exon 20 (10.5%). Of note, one sample showed concurrent mutations in exons 9 (codon 545) and 20 (codon 1047). Among patients reaching pCR (n = 13), 38.5% were PIK3CA mutants; on the other hand, among those lacking pCR (n = 25), just 12% showed PIK3CA variants. Regarding THP-treated mutant patients (n = 5), 80% reached pCR (three hormone-receptor-negative, one hormone-receptor-positive). Interestingly, the only patient not achieving pCR had a tumor with two co-occurring PIK3CA mutations. In conclusion, this study provides new evidence about the efficacy and good safety profile of THP, compared to the ATH regimen, as an anthracycline-free neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive EBC. Further studies on larger/multicentric cohorts are planned for more in-depth analysis to confirm our molecular and clinical results.

Breast cancer (BC) diagnosis and treatment have become a cumulative long-standing chronic disease impairment, causing stress and turning into an allostatic load (AL) framework. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between physical issues and mental health in patients with BC after medical treatment. We conducted an observational study of 61 female patients with BC, and clinical and psychological markers have been detected. We conducted descriptive statistics, ANOVA analyses, correlations, and mediation analyses to verify the effect of the comorbidity index on psychological dimensions. The findings showed high levels of distress and moderate pain, and 32.8% of the patients showed moderate physical impairment. Significant effects of "age" and "physical issues" were found. The adult group reported a higher incidence of physical issues, and the group of patients reporting moderate physical impairment seemed more depressed than patients with mild physical issues. Finally, the comorbidity condition mediated the presence of signs of depression. Patients with BC seemed to experience negative emotions related to comorbidities associated with compromised activities of daily living. Our findings highlighted allostatic overload as a predictive framework to better understand the mental health of women with BC diagnoses to tailor effective psychological treatments for enhanced recovery.

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

Background: In the last years immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not supported by a driver mutation. Immunotherapy related adverse events (irAEs) have a unique toxicity profiles distinct from the toxicities of classical chemotherapy treatment relating to their mechanism of action. We analyzed some serious and uncommon life-threatening irAEs, needing a change in the therapeutic strategy., Method: Between October 2018 and October 2020, 63 NSCLC patients underwent immunotherapy. Thirty-eight patients underwent first-line Pembrolizumab, 200 mg every 21 days (Group A). Twenty patients were treated in second line with Pembrolizumab 200 mg every 21 days or Nivolumab 240 mg every 14 days or Atezolizumab 800 mg every 14 days (Group B). Five stage III patients treated after radio chemotherapy with Durvalumab 1500 mg every 14 days (Group C)., Results: We experienced: a) 2 bowel perforations (3.2%), necessitating Hartmann's resection. Only one of the two patients restored immunotherapy; b) 1 chronic renal insufficiency (1.6%, creatinine up to 8 mg/dL) and 2 severe hypertransaminasemias (3.2%, up to 65 U/L), requiring the immediate and definitive interruption of ICIs; c) 2 pericardial effusions (3.2%), of which one needed subxiphoid pericardiocentesis for cardiac tamponade. Patient restored immunotherapy after resolution of the acute event., Conclusions: Immunotherapy include monoclonal antibodies reducing the suppression of effector T cells and improving the tumor-specific immune responses. Most common irAEs are evident in mild and reversible form, but sometimes life-threatening irEAs show up. Therefore, further clinical trials needed to increase knowledge of drugs and prevent unexpected irAEs.

Background: The evolution of therapeutic landscape of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) has led to an unprecedented outcome improvement, even if the optimal sequence strategy is still debated. To address this issue and to provide a picture of the advancement of anti-HER2 treatments, we performed a large, multicenter, retrospective study of HER2-positive BC patients., Methods: The observational PANHER study included 1,328 HER2-positive advanced BC patients treated with HER2 blocking agents since June 2000 throughout July 2020. Endpoints of efficacy were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Patients who received a first-line pertuzumab-based regimen showed better PFS ( p < 0.0001) and OS ( p = 0.004) than those receiving other treatments. Median PFS and mOS from second-line starting were 8 and 28 months, without significant differences among various regimens. Pertuzumab-pretreated patients showed a mPFS and a mOS from second-line starting not significantly affected by type of second line, that is, T-DM1 or lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.80 and p = 0.45, respectively). Conversely, pertuzumab-naïve patients receiving second-line T-DM1 showed a significantly higher mPFS compared with that of patients treated with lapatinib/capecitabine ( p = 0.004). Median OS from metastatic disease diagnosis was higher in patients treated with trastuzumab-based first line followed by second-line T-DM1 in comparison to pertuzumab-based first-line and second-line T-DM1 ( p = 0.003), although these data might be partially influenced by more favorable prognostic characteristics of patients in the pre-pertuzumab era . No significant differences emerged when comparing patients treated with 'old' or 'new' drugs ( p = 0.43), even though differences in the length of the follow-up between the two cohorts should be taken into account., Conclusion: Our results confirmed a relevant impact of first-line pertuzumab-based treatment and showed lower efficacy of second-line T-DM1 in trastuzumab/pertuzumab pretreated, as compared with pertuzumab-naïve patients. Our findings may help delineate a more appropriate therapeutic strategy in HER2-positive metastatic BC. Prospective randomized trials addressing this topic are awaited., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EK, IS, MB, MM, MMaz, EMV, IM, RB, FSDL, MP, LI, ER, NDO, ST, CF, KC, FR, AC, MAF, GB, AB, GDA, AC, AR, BTS, GS, FG, RS, DM, DC, EMC, VS, LMe, GT, MR, LM, MMi, EMR, PS, NS, LL, NT, AG, AFS, RR, MRV, EL, SS, BF, MMS, MDT, AM, AO, VL, EC, GS, PP, FC, LL, CB, FT, SC, GB, FP, FCav, OB, EF, JF, SS, and GC declare no conflicts of interest. LP received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Gentili. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Lilly. CN received travel grants/personal fees from Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AstraZeneca. EB is supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research AIRC-IG 20583; he was supported by the International Association for Lung Cancer (IASLC), the LILT (Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro I Tumori), and Fondazione Cariverona; he received speakers’ and travels’ fee from MSD, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Helsinn, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, and Roche; consultant’s fee from Roche, Pfizer; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Roche. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees, advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre Fabre. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer. GT and DS: advisory board Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Incyte. PV received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

One side-effect of oncological treatment is chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA), a temporary form of hair loss that could influence patients' mental health. Digitised scalp cooling systems are assuming an important role in the clinical setting during adjuvant treatment, promising hair loss prevention and allowing an efficient procedure to reinforce patients' mental health during chemotherapy by avoiding CIA. The present study was carried out through two research protocols: in Research Protocol 1, we conducted a randomised clinical study to evaluate the emotional impact of using scalp cooling technology in women with BC compared with a traditional chemotherapy setting; in Research Protocol 2, we conducted an observational pre-post study involving women with BC diagnosis being under adjuvant chemotherapy in two experimental conditions: no scalp cooling application and scalp cooling application. Seventy-four women undergoing chemotherapy, aged 30-55 years, were enrolled in both research protocols. We investigated oncological patients' psychological dimensions including body image, body appreciation, expectations, and satisfaction with the scalp cooling treatment, with reference to chemotherapy treatment applying the scalp cooling solution. Our data evidenced the need to implement a supportive clinical approach via brief, tailored psychological intervention addressing patients' progressive adaptation to chemotherapy adverse events and their concerns regarding induced alopecia and the value of the scalp cooling system. Patients receiving the innovative chemotherapy probably coped with it by neglecting its physical impact, instead focusing on avoiding alopecia by using the technological solution and neglecting the emotional impact of chemotherapy as a severe pharmacological treatment.

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

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

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

Introduction: Large and consistent evidence supports the use of eribulin mesylate in clinical practice in third or later line treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Conversely, there is paucity of data on eribulin efficacy in second line treatment. Methods: We investigated outcomes of 44 mTNBC patients treated from 2013 through 2019 with second line eribulin mesylate in a multicentre retrospective study involving 14 Italian oncologic centres. Results: Median age was 51 years, with 11.4% of these patients being metastatic at diagnosis. Median overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) from eribulin starting were 11.9 (95%CI: 8.4-15.5) and 3.5 months (95%CI: 1.7-5.3), respectively. We observed 8 (18.2%) partial responses and 10 (22.7%) patients had stable disease as best response. A longer PFS on previous first line treatment predicted a better OS (HR=0.87, 95%CI: 0.77-0.99, p= 0.038) and a longer PFS on eribulin treatment (HR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.85-0.98, p=0.018). Progression free survival to eribulin was also favorably influenced by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (HR=0.44, 95%CI: 0.22-0.88, p=0.02). Eribulin was generally well tolerated, with grade 3-4 adverse events being recorded in 15.9% of patients. Conclusions: The outcomes described for our cohort are consistent with those reported in the pivotal Study301 and subsequent observational studies. Further data from adequately-sized, ad hoc trials on eribulin use in second line for mTNBC are warranted to confirm our findings., Competing Interests: Competing Interests: EK, MRV, EC, CB, GS, EA, ST, AG, CF, KC, LL, IM, FG, EMV, FG, VL, MMau, FT, DS, GT, AV, VG, IS, GC, MM and MB declare no conflict of interests. LP received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis; speaker fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili.PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Incyte. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, Novartis; personal fees, advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Celgene. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Pfizer. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, Pierre Fabre. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, Lilly. PV received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili., (© The author(s).)

Background: Improved outcome in tobacco smoking patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following immunotherapy has previously been reported. However, little is known regarding this association during first-line immunotherapy in patients with high PD-L1 expression. In this study we compared clinical outcomes according to the smoking status of two large multicenter cohorts., Methods: We compared clinical outcomes according to the smoking status (never smokers vs. current/former smokers) of two retrospective multicenter cohorts of metastatic NSCLC patients, treated with first-line pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy., Results: A total of 962 NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% who received first-line pembrolizumab and 462 NSCLC patients who received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were included in the study. Never smokers were confirmed to have a significantly higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.49 [95% CI: 1.15-1.92], p = 0.0022) and death (HR = 1.38 [95% CI: 1.02-1.87], p = 0.0348) within the pembrolizumab cohort. On the contrary, a nonsignificant trend towards a reduced risk of disease progression (HR = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.52-1.05], p = 0.1003) and death (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.45-1.01], p = 0.0593) were reported for never smokers within the chemotherapy cohort. After a random case-control matching, 424 patients from both cohorts were paired. Within the matched pembrolizumab cohort, never smokers had a significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.68 [95% CI: 1.17-2.40], p = 0.0045) and a nonsignificant trend towards a shortened overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 0.84-2.07], p = 0.2205). On the contrary, never smokers had a significantly longer PFS (HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.49-0.95], p = 0.0255) and OS (HR = 0.66 [95% CI: 0.45-0.97], p = 0,0356) compared to current/former smoker patients within the matched chemotherapy cohort. On pooled multivariable analysis, the interaction term between smoking status and treatment modality was concordantly statistically significant with respect to ORR (p = 0.0074), PFS (p = 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0020), confirming the significantly different impact of smoking status across the two cohorts., Conclusions: Among metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab, current/former smokers experienced improved PFS and OS. On the contrary, worse outcomes were reported among current/former smokers receiving first-line chemotherapy., (© 2021 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Despite the paradigmatic shift occurred in recent years for defined molecular subtypes in the metastatic setting treatment, colorectal cancer (CRC) still remains an incurable disease in most of the cases. Therefore, there is an urgent need for new tools and biomarkers for both early tumor diagnosis and to improve personalized treatment. Thus, liquid biopsy has emerged as a minimally invasive tool that is capable of detecting genomic alterations from primary or metastatic tumors, allowing the prognostic stratification of patients, the detection of the minimal residual disease after surgical or systemic treatments, the monitoring of therapeutic response, and the development of resistance, establishing an opportunity for early intervention before imaging detection or worsening of clinical symptoms. On the other hand, preclinical and clinical evidence demonstrated the role of gut microbiota dysbiosis in promoting inflammatory responses and cancer initiation. Altered gut microbiota is associated with resistance to chemo drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors, whereas the use of microbe-targeted therapies including antibiotics, pre-probiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation can restore response to anticancer drugs, promote immune response, and therefore support current treatment strategies in CRC. In this review, we aim to summarize preclinical and clinical evidence for the utilization of liquid biopsy and gut microbiota in CRC.

Background: Despite the increase in chances of cure for early breast cancer (EBC) patients, approximately 20-45% of them will experience a disease recurrence, particularly bone metastases in 60-80% of cases, which occur more frequently in luminal subtypes. Endocrine therapy (ET) has always been the milestone of adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive EBC patients, leading to indubitable reduction of disease recurrence risk. However, adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AIs) therapy may promote a progressive decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), which can lead to osteoporosis. The increased bone resorption associated with osteoporosis may provide fertile soil for cancer growth and accelerate the development of bone metastases., Patients and Methods: In this single-institution cohort study, we performed a retrospective analysis of "luminal-like" EBC patients who experienced bone recurrence after a subsequent disease free interval. The aim of the study was to evaluate the median time to skeletal recurrence (TSkR)., Results: 143 patients experienced bone recurrence. Median TSkR was 54 months (95%CI: 45-65). Among patients who received adjuvant AIs median TSkR was 35 months (95%CI: 25-54), while among patients who did not was 61 months (95%CI: 50-80) (HR = 1.45 [95%CI: 0.97-2.17], p = 0.0644). After adjusting for TNM stage (AJCC 8th edition), adjuvant AIs treatment was significantly related to a shorter TSkR (HR = 1.60 [95%CI: 1.06-2.42], p = 0.0244). Adjuvant Tamoxifen, adjuvant AIs/Tamoxifen and no-treatment did not revealed to be associated to TSkR., Conclusions: In this cohort of EBC patients with bone recurrence, AIs treatment seems to be related to a shorter TSkR. AIs-induced bone resorption might represent the underlying mechanism.

Body mass index (BMI) is a main indicator of obesity and its association with breast cancer is well established. However, little is known in the metastatic setting, especially in HER2-positive patients. We assessed the influence of BMI on clinical outcomes of patients treated with pertuzumab and/or trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). BMI was addressed as a categorical variable, being classified on the basis of the following ranges, that is, 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9, and 30.0-34.9, namely, normal weight, overweight, and Class I obesity. The outcomes chosen were progression-free survival to first-line chemotherapy (PFS1) and overall survival (OS). Overall (N = 709), no impact of BMI was observed on PFS1 (p = .15), while BMI ≥ 30 was associated with worse OS (p = .003). In subjects who progressed to first line (N = 575), analyzing data across PFS1 quartiles and strata of disease burden, BMI predicted lower PFS1 in patients within the I PFS1 quartile and with the lowest disease burden (p = .001). Univariate analysis showed a detrimental effect of BMI ≥ 30 on OS for women within the I PFS1 quartile (p = .03). Results were confirmed in multivariate analysis. According to PFS1 quartiles a higher percentage of patients with high BMI and low disease burden progressed within 6 months of therapy. The effect of BMI on prognosis was also confirmed in multivariate analysis of OS for overall population. In our cohort, a BMI ≥ 30 correlated with worse OS in patients with HER2+ mBC who received pertuzumab and/or T-DM1 but had no impact on PFS to first line. BMI predicted worse I PFS1 quartile., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The role of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), as a surrogate predictor of the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors, has not yet been described in the setting of first-line, single-agent pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung-cancer (NSCLC) with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥ 50%., Patients and Methods: We previously conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in patients with treatment-naive metastatic NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression of ≥ 50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab. Here, we report the results of the irAE analysis and the potential correlation between irAEs and clinical outcomes., Results: A total of 1010 patients were included in this analysis; after a 6-week landmark selection, 877 (86.8%) patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), grade 3/4 irAEs (P = .0025), leading to discontinuation irAEs (P = .0144), multiple-site and single-site irAEs (P < .0001), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0001), endocrine irAEs (P = .0227), pulmonary irAEs (P = .0479), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0018) were significantly related to a higher objective response rate. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), single-site irAEs (P < .0001), multiple-site irAEs (P = .0005), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0042), endocrine irAEs (P < .0001), gastrointestinal irAEs (P = .0391), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0086) were significantly related to progression-free survival. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), single-site irAEs (P < .0001), multiple-site irAEs (P = .0003), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0002), endocrine irAEs (P = .0001), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0214) were significantly related to overall survival., Conclusions: This study confirms the feasibility and the safety of first-line, single-agent pembrolizumab, in a large, real-world cohort of patients with NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%. The occurrence of irAEs may be a surrogate of clinical activity and improved outcomes in this setting., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The prognostic role of family history of cancer (FHC) in resected colorectal cancer (CRC) is controversial. The aim of the current study was to evaluate its impact in a monoinstitutional series of stage III CRC patients., Methods: This single institution retrospective analysis is aimed at evaluating whether FHC affects overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in stage III CRC patients. Moreover, the role of both colorectal FHC (FHCRC, in patients with at least one relative with CRC) and FHC "burden" have been investigated; patients were classified according to FHC in FHC negative, FHC-low (one "familial cluster" among parents/children/grandparents, brothers/sisters, uncles/cousins), and FHC-high (at least two clusters of those above mentioned)., Results: From October 2000 to March 2019, 112 consecutive stage III CRC patients have been evaluated. Median age was 67 years (range 24-89); male/female ratio was 64/48. Fifty-three (47.3%) patients were FHC-negative while 59 (52.7%) patients were FHC-positive, 18 (16.1%) of whom were FHCRC-positive. Thirty-three (29.5%) patients were FHC-low, and 10 (8.9%) were FHC-high. At a median follow-up of 41.9 months, no statistically significant differences in DFS were found. FHC-positive patients had a significantly longer OS than FHC-negative (HR = 0.32 [95% CI 0.12-0.84], p = 0.0210), and a significant trend towards improved OS according to the FHC burden was found (p = 0.0255). No statistically significant differences were found in DFS and OS according to FHCRC., Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, FHC-positive stage III CRC patients had a significantly longer OS compared to FHC-negative. Moreover, this survival benefit seems to increase according to the FHC burden. Further prospective studies, with longer follow-up and larger sample size, are necessary to confirm FHC as prognostic factor in this setting.

Breast cancer (BC) is a common and heterogeneous disease, of which six molecular subtypes, characterized by different biological features and clinical outcomes, were described. The identification of additional biomarkers able to further connote and distinguish the different BC subtypes is essential to improve the diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic strategies in BC patients. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short non-coding RNA involved in several physiological and pathological processes, including cancer development and progression. In particular, circulating miRNAs, which can be found in an adequately stable structure in serum/plasma of cancer patients, are emerging as very promising non-invasive biomarkers. Several studies have analyzed the potential role of circulating miRNAs as prognostic and therapeutic markers in BC. In the present review we describe circulating miRNAs, identified as putative biomarker in BC, with special reference to different BC molecular subtypes.