Search

Valentina Burgio,1 Massimo Iavarone,2 Giovanni Giuseppe Di Costanzo,3 Fabio Marra,4 Sara Lonardi,5,6 Emiliano Tamburini,7 Fabio Piscaglia,8 Gianluca Masi,9,10 Ciro Celsa,11 Francesco Giuseppe Foschi,12 Marianna Silletta,13 Daniela Caterina Amoruso,14 Margherita Rimini,15 Mariangela Bruccoleri,2 Raffaella Tortora,3 Claudia Campani,4 Caterina Soldà ,6 Massimo Giuseppe Viola,16 Antonella Forgione,8 Fabio Conti,12 Francesca Salani,9,10 Silvia Catanese,9,10 Carmelo Marco Giacchetto,17 Claudia Fulgenzi,13 Carmine Coppola,14 Pietro Lampertico,18 Antonio Pellino,6,19 Gabriele Rancatore,17 Giuseppe Cabibbo,17 Francesca Ratti,20 Federica Pedica,21 Angelo Della Corte,22 Massimo Colombo,18 Francesco De Cobelli,23 Luca Aldrighetti,20 Stefano Cascinu,1,23 Andrea Casadei-Gardini1,23 1Department of Medical Oncology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 2Foundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Milan, Italy; 3Department of Hepatology, Naples, 80131, Italy; 4Dipartimento di Medicina Sperimentale e Clinica, Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy; 5Early Phase Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy; 6Medical Oncology Unit 1, Department of Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy; 7Department of Oncology and Palliative Care, Cardinale Hospital, Naples, Italy; 8Division of Internal Medicine, Hepatobiliary and Immunoallergic Disease, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 9Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 10Unit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy; 11Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Palermo, 90127, Italy; 12Internal Medicine, Infermi Hospital, Faenza (AUSL ROMAGNA), Ravenna, Italy; 13Department of Oncology, Campus Bio Medico, Roma, Italy; 14Hepatology Unit, Internal Medicine, Area Stabiese Hospital, Naples, Italy; 15Department of Oncology and Hematology, Division of Oncology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, 4121, Italy; 16Department of General Surgery and Emergency Surgery, Cardinale Hospital, Tricase, Italy; 17Section of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, Palermo, 90127, Italy; 18Liver Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 19Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; 20Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, Liver Center, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 21Department of Experimental Oncology, Pathology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 22Department of Radiology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 23School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, 20132, ItalyCorrespondence: Andrea Casadei-GardiniDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina n. 60, Milan, ItalyEmail casadeigardini@gmail.comBackground: Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib.Aims and Methods: To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival.Results: Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34– 0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue.Conclusion: Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.Keywords: hepatocarcinoma, sorafenib, lenvatinib

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting. Methods: Overall cohort included Western and Eastern hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea). Results: 1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p < 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p = 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child-Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis, α-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures. Conclusion: Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR.

Introduction: The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) is a multiparametric score introduced by Onodera based on the blood levels of lymphocytes and albumin in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms. Regarding hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its prognostic role has been demonstrated in patients treated with sorafenib and lenvatinib. The aim of this real-world study is to investigate the association between clinical outcomes and PNI in patients being treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Methods: The overall cohort of this multicentric study included 871 consecutive HCC patients from 4 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line therapy. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin concentration (g/dL) + 0.005 × peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3). Results: For only 773 patients, data regarding lymphocyte counts and albumin levels were available, so only these patients were included in the final analysis. The cut-off point of the PNI was determined to be 41 by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. 268 patients (34.7%) were categorized as the PNI-low group, while the remaining 505 (65.3%) patients as the PNI-high group. At the univariate analysis, high PNI was associated with longer overall survival (OS) (22.5 vs. 10.1 months, HR 0.34, p < 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs. 5.8 months, HR 0.63, p < 0.01) compared to patients with low PNI. At the multivariate analysis, high versus low PNI resulted as an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.49 , p < 0.01) and PFS (HR 0.82, p = 0.01). There was no difference in objective response rate (ORR) between the two groups (high 26.1% vs. low 19.8%, p = 0.09), while disease control rate (DCR) was significantly higher in the PNI-high group (76.8% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.01). Conclusion: PNI is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS in HCC patients on first-line treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario.Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point.The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events.Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Background. Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), intended as induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by radio-chemotherapy (RCT), has been taking hold in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The aim of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the role of TNT followed by curative surgery. Methods. Eligible studies were those reporting on patients with PDAC undergoing curative surgery after TNT. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results. A total of 1080 patients with PDAC who had undergone TNT were analyzed. The most common IC regimen was Gemcitabine (N 620, 57%). Toxicity during IC varied from 14% to 51%. Disease progression during IC varied from 3% to 25%. 607 (62%) patients underwent curative surgery after IC + CRT. In meta-analysis, the available data on lymph node metastases radicality and 2 years OS had better results in favor of TNT groups (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20–2.60, p = 0.004 and OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19–3.47, p = 0.01 and OR 1.64, CI 1.09–2.47, p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions. Despite the heterogeneity of the studies, different selection criteria, and non-negligible drop-out rate, TNT demonstrated a potential superiority to NAT without CRT in oncological and pathological outcomes, even if the main differences seem to depend on the IC regimen.

Second-line treatments are standard care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with preserved liver function who are intolerant of or progress on first-line therapy. However, determinants of treatment benefit and post-treatment survival (PTS) remain unknown. HCC patients previously treated with sorafenib and enrolled in second-line clinical trials were pooled according to the investigational treatment received and the subsequent regulatory approval: approved targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors (AT) or other agents (OT) not subsequently approved. Univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards models established relationships among treatments received, clinical variables, and overall survival (OS) or PTS. For 174 patients (80 AT; 94 OT) analyzed, baseline factors for longer OS in multivariate analysis were second-line AT, absence of both portal vein thrombosis and extrahepatic spread (EHS). Treatment with AT (versus OT) was associated with significantly longer OS among patients with EHS (pinteraction = 0.005) and patients with low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR; pinteraction = 0.032). Median PTS was 4.0 months (95% CI 2.8–5.3). At second-line treatment discontinuation, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels

Aim: A link has been established between malnutrition, immunological status, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) has been recognized as a prognostic indicator in early-stage HCC and in patients treated with first-line therapy. However, to date, the role of the PNI in HCC patients treated with regorafenib has not been reported. Methods: We undertook a multicentric analysis on a cohort of 284 patients affected by advanced HCC treated with regorafenib. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10×serum albumin concentration (g/dl)+0.005×peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the association between PNI and survival outcomes. Results: A PNI cut-off value of 44.45 was calculated by a receiver operating characteristic analysis. The median overall survival was 12.8 and 7.8 months for patients with high (>44.45) and low (≤44.45) PNI, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.77; p=0.0002). In the univariate and multivariate analyses, low PNI value and increased serum bilirubin level emerged as independent prognostic factors for overall survival. No differences were found between high and low PNI in terms of progression-free survival (p=0.14). Conclusion: If validated, the PNI could represent an easy-to-use prognostic tool able to guide the clinical decision-making process in HCC patients treated with regorafenib.

e24015 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent malignancy in patients (pts) aged 70. Elderly patients are often excluded by clinical trials; however, improvements in quality of life and comorbidities management led to expand the access to anticancer treatments irrespectively of age per se. Finding new tools to stratify vulnerability in elderly pts is crucial to guide clinicians in therapeutic decisions. G8 and timed up and go test (TUG) have been related to prognosis and functional decline in patients affected by several solid tumors. However, no studies focused on TUG and G8 prognostic value in CRC pts are available. In this study, we assessed the prognostic value of G8 and TUG in a cohort of real-life elderly pts with metastatic CRC (mCRC). Methods: GOLD was a multicentre, observational, prospective study in which pts aged 70 with mCRC and eligible to 1st line therapy were enrolled. G8 and TUG were performed at screening and at the first documented disease progression (PD). G8 cutoff was 14, as reported in literature; TUG8,5 sec (cutoff set with ROC curve using MedCalc software v 20.027). PFS and OS were described with Kaplan-Meyer curve. All analyzed variables were then compared with multivariate models. Primary endpoint of the study was to assess prognostic value of G8 in OS and PFS. Secondary endpoints were to assess prognostic value of TUG in OS and PFS. Results: Since Oct 2017 to Apr 2019, 109 pts were evaluated in 4 different Oncology Units in Veneto (IT); 4 were not eligible to anticancer treatments and where thus excluded. 105 pts were finally enrolled. Clinical, histological and molecular characteristics were well balanced between pts with G814 vs > 14, with the exception of RASmut, more represented in the G8 > 14 group (p = 0,0195). 39 (37%) pts were aged80; 46 (44%) had ECOG PS1; 55 (53%) had RASmut; 15 (15%) had BRAFmut. 81 (77%) had G814; 78 (75%) had TUG8,5. At a median follow up time of 41,2 months, median OS was 19,41 months (95%CI 15,46-23,19) and median PFS 8,78 months (95% CI 7,53-10,07). OS was longer in patients with G814 (HR 0,61; 95%CI 0,39-0,97; p= 0,0584) and TUG8,5 (HR 0,55; 95%CI 0,35- 0,86; p= 0,0201). PFS was not influenced by G8 (HR 0,86; 95%CI 0,55-1,34; p= 0,5125) nor by TUG (HR 0,71; 95%CI 0,47-1,08). G814 and TUG8,5 conferred better OS also in the subgroup of RASmut (respectively p= 0,0133 and p= 0,0088). Worse OS was observed in presence of > 1 metastatic site (HR = 1,71; 95%CI 1,11 to 2,64; p= 0,0161). At the multivariate analysis, G814 ( p= 0,0202) and single metastatic site ( p= 0,0200) were related to better OS; none of the analysed variables had effect on PFS. Conclusions: In our study G814 and TUG8,5 had prognostic value in OS, but not in PFS, in a real-life population of elderly pts affected by mCRC. G8 and single metastatic site involvement were related to better OS, irrespectively of other clinical, histological and molecular variables.

Purpose Data from common clinical practice were used to generate balanced cohorts of patients receiving either sorafenib or lenvatinib, for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, with the final aim to investigate their declared equivalence. Methods Clinical features of lenvatinib and sorafenib patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival was the primary endpoint and occurrence of adverse events was the secondary. Results The analysis included 385 patients who received lenvatinib, and 555 patients who received sorafenib. In the unadjusted cohort, lenvatinib did not show a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.02). After IPTW adjustment, lenvatinib still not returned a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) even in presence of balanced baseline characteristics. Lenvatinib provided longer survival than sorafenib in patients previously submitted to TACE (HR: 0.69), with PS of 0 (HR: 0.73) or without extrahepatic disease (HR: 0.69). Conclusion Present results confirmed randomized controlled trial in the real-life setting, but also suggests that in earlier stages some benefit can be expected.

Background Recent data suggest a potential activity and a good tolerability of capecitabine in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aims To evaluate capecitabine activity and safety in a wide cohort of advanced HCC patients. Methods Retrospective analysis of 143 capecitabine-treated patients (January 2010 to December 2017) in three centers of the Veneto Oncology Network. Results Capecitabine was administered in second and third line, but also in first line instead of sorafenib in Child-Pugh B patients (70%), compromised clinical conditions (14%) or contraindications to antiangiogenetics (16%). Median overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were 6.9 and 2.8 months, respectively. There were no differences in OS and TTP between the 32 patients treated with non-metronomic scheme (2000 mg/day for 14 days) and the 111 patients treated with metronomic scheme (1000 mg/day) after correction for prognostic factors at baseline with a propensity score analysis. Capecitabine was more active in patients intolerant to sorafenib than in those progressing during treatment (p = 0.024). At least one adverse event (mainly hematological) was experienced by 73% of patients but discontinuation was necessary only in 11 (8%). Conclusions Capecitabine can be considered an active and safe option in advanced HCC, especially for patients unfit for other treatments.

A large body of biomedical evidence indicates that activation of Nrf2 by curcumin increases the nucleophilic tone and damps inflammation cumulatively supporting the malignant phenotype. Conversely, genetic analyses suggest a possible oncogenic nature of constitutive Nrf2 activation since an increased nucleophilic tone is alleged increasing chemoresistance of cancer cells. Aiming to contribute to solve this paradox, this study addressed the issue of safety and efficacy of curcumin as complementary therapy of gemcitabine on pancreatic cancer. This was a single centre, single arm prospective phase II trial. Patients received gemcitabine and Meriva®, a patented preparation of curcumin complexed with phospholipids. Primary endpoint was response rate, secondary endpoints were progression free survival, overall survival, tolerability and quality of life. Analysis of inflammatory biomarkers was also carried out. Fifty-two consecutive patients were enrolled. Forty-four (13 locally advanced and 31 metastatic) were suitable for primary endpoint evaluation. Median age was 66 years (range 42–87); 42 patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1. The median number of treatment cycle was 4.5 (range 2–14). We observed 27.3% of response rate and 34.1% of cases with stable disease, totalizing a disease control rate of 61.4%. The median progression free survival and overall survival were 8.4 and 10.2 months, respectively. Higher IL-6 and sCD40L levels before treatment were associated to a worse overall survival (p

Sorafenib is the only validated pharmacological treatment option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the context of Child-Pugh class A liver function. Effective and safe systemic treatments for advanced disease with severe underlying cirrhosis (Child-Pugh class B and C) are not yet available. A few reports have described capecitabine as an option after failure of sorafenib or for patients who were not eligible for clinical trials. Here, we present a case of good response to low dose capecitabine in a patient with advanced HCC.

Background The challenge of immune senescence has never been addressed in elderly cancer patients. This study compares the thymic output and peripheral blood telomere length in ≥ 70 year old cancer patients. Patients and methods Fifty-two elderly cancer patients and 39 age-matched controls without personal history of cancer were enrolled. All patients underwent a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), from which a multidimensional prognostic index (MPI) score was calculated. Peripheral blood samples were studied for naive and recent thymic emigrant (RTE) CD4+ and CD8+ cells by flow cytometry. T-cell receptor rearrangement excision circle (TREC) levels, telomere length and telomerase activity in peripheral blood cells were quantified by real-time PCR. Results The percentages of CD8+ naive and CD8+ RTE cells and TREC levels were significantly lower in cancer patients than in controls (p = 0.003, p = 0.004, p = 0.031, respectively). Telomere lengths in peripheral blood cells were significantly shorter in cancer patients than in controls (p = 0.046) and did not correlate with age in patients, whereas it did in controls (r = − 0.354, p = 0.031). Short telomere (≤ median)/low TREC (≤ median) profile was associated with higher risk of cancer (OR = 3.68 [95% CI 1.22–11.11]; p = 0.021). Neither unfitness on CGA nor MPI score were significantly related to thymic output or telomere length in either group. Conclusions Immune senescence is significantly worse in elderly cancer patients than in age-matched controls. The low thymic output and the shorter telomeres in peripheral blood cells of cancer patients may reflect a pre-existing condition which facilitates the onset of malignancies in elderly people.

Central Nervous System (CNS) involvement in lymphoma can occur whether at diagnosis or, more often, at the progression or recurrence of disease and the most frequent clinical manifestation is lymphomatous meningitis (LM). The first risk factor for LM development is the histotype, with the highest incidence for highly aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL) such as Burkitt's lymphoma (BL) and lymphoblastic lymphoma/acute lymphoblastic leukemia (LBL/ALL) and the lowest for indolent NHL. LM prophylaxis in aggressive NHL (other than BL and LBL/ALL) is a much debated question, because the identification of specific risk factors remains controversial. Moreover, there is not a consensus if the LM prophylaxis should consist of systemic chemotherapy (CT), intrathecal (i.t.) CT or both. In case of LM, the i.t. CT has a key role, but there is not a consensus on treatment schedule. Newer intensified regimens and rituximab lead to reconsider the whole approach to LM.

Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) is a serious complication after solid organ transplantation. Reduction of immunosuppression (RI) alone is not able to control the disease. We report a prospective analysis of 30 patients with PTLD after heart or kidney transplantation. Only 5 of 30 patients, treated solely with RI, obtained a complete response. Five patients were treated heterogeneously; in the remaining 20, the efficacy and safety of a weekly anthracycline-based chemotherapy were assessed. Sixteen patients obtained a complete remission. One death was related to treatment. With a median follow-up of 36 months, 3-year overall survival was 63.3% and 57% for the entire group and the chemotherapy-treated group, respectively. Moreover, 4 second neoplasms were observed in the chemotherapeutic group. In this study, we demonstrated that most PTLD need other treatment than RI and a weekly regimen is manageable and has a favourable impact on long-term survival.

9065 Background: Estimated tumor-independent life expectancy is a key element for treatment choices in ECP. MGA allows to subdivide them into three categories of Fit, Vulnerable and Frail pts. Whet...