Search

Purpose: This multicenter phase Ib study investigated trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) plus nivolumab in patients with HER2-expressing metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC)., Patients and Methods: Part 1 determined the recommended dose for expansion of T-DXd plus nivolumab. Part 2 evaluated efficacy and safety; the primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate by independent central review., Results: In part 1, seven patients with mBC were enrolled and received T-DXd 3.2 mg/kg (four patients) or 5.4 mg/kg (three patients) plus nivolumab. The recommended dose for expansion for T-DXd was 5.4 mg/kg plus nivolumab 360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. In part 2, 32 patients with HER2-positive mBC (cohort 1; inclusive of three administered 5.4 mg/kg in part 1), 16 with HER2-low mBC (cohort 2), 30 with HER2-high mUC (cohort 3), and four with HER2-low mUC (cohort 4) were enrolled. At data cutoff (July 22, 2021), the confirmed objective response rates (95% confidence interval) for cohorts 1 to 4 were 65.6% (46.8%-81.4%), 50.0% (24.7%-75.3%), 36.7% (19.9%-56.1%), and not assessed due to small sample size, respectively. The median treatment duration (range) with T-DXd in cohorts 1 to 4 was 8.9 (1-23) months, 6.9 (1-21) months, 3.9 (1-21) months, and not assessed, respectively; the most common treatment-emergent adverse event was nausea (55.2%, 62.5%, 73.3%, and 75.0%, respectively). Adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis rates (cohorts 1-3) were 20.7%, 0%, and 20.0%, respectively (one grade 5 each, cohorts 1 and 3)., Conclusions: T-DXd plus nivolumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in HER2-expressing mBC or mUC and safety consistent with the known profile of T-DXd. Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis is an important risk and requires careful monitoring and prompt intervention., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Thyroid Transcription Factor-1 (TTF-1) expression in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) has been studied for its prognostic value in early-stage and metastatic disease. Its role in brain metastasis remains unexplored. This study investigates the predictive value and association of TTF-1 status with clinicopathological variables in patients with synchronous LUAD brain metastases., Material and Methods: In this bicentric retrospective study, 245 patients with newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve brain metastasis undergoing resection were included. Patient data were retrieved from electronic records. Outcomes included overall and progression-free survival. Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Mean Ki67 index in TTF-1 negative patients was 43% [95% CI 38-48%] compared to 32% [95% CI 29-35%] in TTF-1 positive (TTF-1 +) patients (p < 0.001). Tumor volume was significantly larger in TTF-1 negative (TTF-1-) patients (mean volume 24 mL [95% CI 18-31 mL]) vs. 15 mL [95% CI 12-17 mL] in TTF-1 + patients (padjust = 0.003). Perifocal edema was smaller in TTF-1- patients (mean volume: 58 mL [95% CI 45-70 mL]) vs. 84 mL [95% CI 73-94 mL] in TTF-1 + patients (padjust = 0.077). Tumor and edema volume did not correlate. TTF-1- patients showed worse overall, intracranial, and extracranial progression-free survival. In a multivariable Cox model, positive TTF-1 status was independently associated with improved outcomes. Negative TTF-1 status was associated with increased hazard for intracranial disease progression compared to extracranial progression., Conclusion: In synchronous LUAD brain metastases, TTF-1 negativity reflects an aggressive phenotype with larger proliferation capacity and tumor volume. Future research should explore the underlying cellular and molecular alterations of this phenotype., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no relevant financial or non-financial interests. There were no competing interests with respect to this study. Ethical approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by the local institutional review boards (EA1/399/20 and 20-1799-101). Consent for publication: Not applicable. Previous presentations: Portions of this work were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS), Sofia, Bulgaria, October 13–17, 2024., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: IL1 pathway upregulation is implicated in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) progression, therapy resistance, and survival. Nadunolimab is an IL1 receptor accessory protein (IL1RAP)-targeting antibody with enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity that blocks IL1α/IL1β signaling. We investigated efficacy and safety of nadunolimab in PDAC, in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN)., Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated locally advanced/metastatic PDAC received nadunolimab (1.0-7.5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks with standard GN. The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives were antitumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). Correlations between serum and tumor biomarkers and clinical response were explored., Results: Seventy-six patients were enrolled; the median age was 63 years (range, 43-89), 42% were female, 97% had metastatic disease, and 9% had received adjuvant chemotherapy. The most frequent grade ≥3 adverse event was neutropenia (66%), typically during cycle 1. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 29% (grade 3, 3%). Only 1 of the 76 patients had grade 3 or above peripheral neuropathy. No marked dose-dependent differences in safety or efficacy were observed among the four dose groups. The median OS was 13.2 months (95% confidence interval, 11.0-15.6), and the 1-year survival rate was 58%. The median immune PFS (immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval, 5.2-7.4). Treatment efficacy was higher in patients with high versus low tumor baseline IL1RAP expression (OS 14.2 vs. 10.6 months; P = 0.012). A reduction in serum IL8 on treatment correlated with prolonged OS., Conclusions: Nadunolimab combined with GN shows promising efficacy and manageable safety in locally advanced/metastatic PDAC. Higher tumor baseline IL1RAP expression correlated with better outcome., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval: This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The project was approved by the ethics committees at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA2/192/17) and the Medical Association of North Rhine (2017429). Consent to participate: Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent to publish: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference Score (PROPr) is estimated from descriptive health assessments within the PROMIS framework. The underlying item response theory (IRT) allows researchers to measure PROMIS health domains with any subset of items that are calibrated to this domain. Consequently, this should also be true for the PROPr. We aimed to test this assumption using both an empirical and a simulation approach., Methods: Empirically, we estimated 3 PROMIS Pain inference (PI) scores from 3 different item subsets in a sample of n=199 cancer patients: 4 PROMIS-29 items (estimate: θ 4 ), the 2 original PROPr items (θ 2 ), and 10 different items (θ 10 ). We calculated mean differences and agreement between θ 4 , and θ 2 and θ 10 , respectively, and between their resulting PROPr 4 , PROPr 2 , PROPr 10 , using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman (B-A) plots with 95 %-Limits of Agreement (LoA). For the simulation, we used the IRT-model to calculate all item responses of the entire 7 PROPr domain item banks from the empirically observed PROMIS-29+cognition θ. From these simulated item banks, we chose the 2 original PROPr items per domain to calculate PROPr sim and compared it to PROPr 4 again using ICC and B-A plots., Results: θ 4 vs θ 10 showed smaller bias (-0.012, 95 %-LoA -0.88;0.85) than θ 4 vs θ 2 (0.025, 95 %-LoA -0.95;1.00. ICC>0.85 (p<0.001) in both θ-comparisons. PROPr 4 vs PROPr 10 showed lower bias (0.0012, 95 %-LoA -0.039;0.042) than PROPr 4 vs PROPr 2 (-0.0029, 95 %-LoA -0.049;0.044). ICC>0.98 (p<0.0001) on both PROPr-comparisons. Mean PROPr sim was larger than mean PROPr 4 (0.0228, 95 %-LoA -0.1103; 0.1558) and ICC was 0.95 (95 %CI 0.93; 0.97)., Conclusion: Different item subsets can be used to estimate the PROMIS PI for calculation of the PROPr. Reduction to 2 items per domain rather than 4 does not significantly change the PROPr estimate on average. Agreements differ across the spectrum and in individual comparisons., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Transition of cytosine to thymine in CpG dinucleotides is the most frequent type of mutation in cancer. This increased mutability is commonly attributed to the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine (5mC), which is normally repaired by the base-excision repair (BER) pathway. However, the contribution of 5mC deamination in the increasing diversity of cancer mutational signatures remains poorly explored. We integrate mutational signatures analysis in a large series of tumor whole genomes with lineage-specific epigenomic data to draw a detailed view of 5mC deamination in cancer. We uncover tumor type-specific patterns of 5mC deamination signatures in CpG and non-CpG contexts. We demonstrate that the BER glycosylase MBD4 preferentially binds to active chromatin and early replicating DNA, which correlates with lower mutational burden in these domains. We validate our findings by modeling BER deficiencies in isogenic cell models. Here, we establish MBD4 as the main actor responsible for 5mC deamination repair in humans., Competing Interests: Competing interests D. Rieke reports advisory agreement with BeiGene and Bayer, honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer and Roche, research support from Seagen, and personal fees from Bayer and Johnson & Johnson, all outside the submitted work. A. Picca reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and Servier, all outside the submitted work. F. Bielle reports funding of research from Abbvie, service agreement for research contracted between his institution and Treefrog Therapeutics as well as Owkin, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and a next-of-kin employed by Bristol Myers Squibb, all outside the submitted work. M.L. Yaspo is COO/CSO and shareholder of Alacris Theranostics without conflict of interest with the submitted work. M. Rodrigues reports non-financial support from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme, grants from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dohme and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. M.-H. Stern reports grants from Immunocore and Bionano, and royalties from Myriad Genetics, all outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Health state utility (HSU) instruments for calculating quality-adjusted life years, such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility - Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D), derived from the EORTC QLQ-30 questionnaire, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) preference score (PROPr), and the EuroQoL-5-Dimensions-5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L), yield different HSU values due to different modeling and different underlying descriptive scales. For example the QLU-C10D includes cancer-relevant dimensions such as nausea. This study aimed to investigate how these differences in descriptive scales contribute to differences in HSU scores by comparing scores of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy to those of the general population., Study Design and Setting: EORTC QLU-C10D, PROPr, and EQ-5D-5L scores were obtained for a convenience sample of 484 outpatients of the Department of Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. Convergent and known group's validity were assessed using Pearson's correlation and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). We assessed each descriptive dimension score's discriminatory power and compared them to those of the general population (n > 1000) using effect size (ES; Cohen's d) and area under the curve (AUC)., Results: The mean scores of QLU-C10D (0.64; 95% CI 0.62-0.67), PROPr (0.38; 95% CI 0.36-0.40), and EQ-5D-5L (0.72; 95% CI 0.70-0.75) differed significantly, irrespective of sociodemographic factors, condition, or treatment. Conceptually similar descriptive scores as obtained from the HSU instruments showed varying degrees of discrimination in terms of ES and AUC between patients and the general population. The QLU-C10D and its dimensions showed the largest ES and AUC., Conclusion: The QLU-C10D and its domains distinguished best between health states of the two populations, compared to the PROPr and EQ-5D-5L. As the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) is widely used in clinical practice, its data are available for economic evaluation., Plain Language Summary: The assessment of dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), such as physical functioning or depression, is important to cancer patients and physicians for treatment and side effect monitoring. Descriptive HRQoL is measured by patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) are the most common PROM in the clinical HRQoL assessment. In recent years, multidimensional preference-based HRQoL measures were developed using these PROM as dimensions. These preference-based measures, also referred to as health state utility (HSU) scores, are needed for economic evaluations of treatments. The QLQ-C30's corresponding HSU score is the quality-of-life utility measure-core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D), and PROMIS' HSU score is the PROMIS preference score (PROPr). Both new HSU scores are frequently compared to the well-established EuroQoL-5-dimensions-5-levels (EQ-5D-5L). They all conceptualize HSU differently, as they assess different dimensions of HRQoL und use different models. Both the QLU-C10D and the PROPr have thus shown systematic differences to the EQ-5D-5L but these were largely consistent across the subgroups. Convergent and known groups validity can therefore be considered established. However, as HSU is a multidimensional construct, it remains unclear how differences in its dimensions, for example, its descriptive scales, contribute to differences in HSU scores. This is of importance as it is the descriptive scales that measure clinical HRQoL. We investigated this question by assessing each dimension's ability to distinguish between a sample of 484 cancer patients and the German general population. We could show that the ability to distinguish depended on the domain: for example, for depression, the QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-5L distinguished clearer, while for physical function, PROMIS did. Overall, the QLU-C10D and its dimensions distinguish best between cancer patients and general population., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We present the rare case of a 51-year-old male diagnosed with a solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) of the prostate, along with a concurrent low-grade prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason score 3 + 3, Grade Group 1). The diagnosis was confirmed by positive immunohistochemical markers, including CD34, BCL2, and STAT6, and molecular analysis showing a NAB2-STAT6 fusion. Following successful surgical management and the simultaneous diagnosis of a pulmonary relapse from a prior thyroid carcinoma, the patient remains under clinical surveillance. This is particularly significant given the patient's history of multiple tumors, including Hodgkin's lymphoma, papillary thyroid carcinoma, prostate cancer, and SFT., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper{Citation}, (© 2024 The Authors.)

Introduction: Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) has emerged as an efficient tool in clinical cancer diagnostics to broaden the scope from panel-based diagnostics to screening of all genes and enabling robust determination of complex biomarkers in a single analysis., Methods: To assess concordance, six formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens and four commercial reference standards were analyzed by WES as matched tumor-normal DNA at 21 NGS centers in Germany, each employing local wet-lab and bioinformatics. Somatic and germline variants, copy-number alterations (CNAs), and complex biomarkers were investigated. Somatic variant calling was performed in 494 diagnostically relevant cancer genes. The raw data were collected and re-analyzed with a central bioinformatic pipeline to separate wet- and dry-lab variability., Results: The mean positive percentage agreement (PPA) of somatic variant calling was 76 % while the positive predictive value (PPV) was 89 % in relation to a consensus list of variants found by at least five centers. Variant filtering was identified as the main cause for divergent variant calls. Adjusting filter criteria and re-analysis increased the PPA to 88 % for all and 97 % for the clinically relevant variants. CNA calls were concordant for 82 % of genomic regions. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status were concordant for 94 %, 93 %, and 93 % of calls, respectively. Variability of CNAs and complex biomarkers did not decrease considerably after harmonization of the bioinformatic processing and was hence attributed mainly to wet-lab differences., Conclusion: Continuous optimization of bioinformatic workflows and participating in round robin tests are recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MMT reports speaker and travel Expenses from Twist. JS reports speaker honoraria from DLS, Molecular Health, AstraZeneca and Biocartis, outside the submitted work. UL reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Menarini, advisory board from AstraZeneca and Novartis. DH reports speaker honorary AstraZeneca, adboard BMS, WD speaker honoraries BMS & Novartis. SMB reports speaker honoraria, advisory board fees and research grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Menarini, Novartis, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Molecular Health, Targos, DLS, Janssen, GSK, QuIP, outside the submitted work. SL reports research grant from BMS, advisory board/speaker invitation from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Roche and Takeda outside of this work. NTG reports research support from Janssen-Cilag and Advisory Boards from Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo and BMS outside the submitted work. WW reports research grants from Roche, MSD, BMS and AstraZeneca. Advisory board, lectures and speaker bureau fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Boehringer, Novartis, Takeda, Bayer, Janssen, Amgen, Astellas, Illumina, Eisai, Siemens, Agilent, ADC, GSK und Molecular Health. SO received reimbursement for travel expenses and payment for conference presentations from Illumina Inc. and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. CS reports research funding from BMS Stiftung Immunonkologie and institutional grants from Illumina outside the submitted work. CPS reports an investigator-initiated grant from Illumnia outside of the submitted work. PS reports grants from Inctye, BMS, Gilead, Falk, speakers bureau/advisory board from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Astellas, Janssen, Eisai, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim. DK reports personal fees for speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, personal fees for Advisory Board from Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. NP reports speaker fees from Novartis, Bayer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Illumina, BMS, MSD, PGDX/Labcorp, advisory board from Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Janssen, travel expenses from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Illumina, BMS, MSD, PGDX/Labcorp, Research grants from Illumina. JB reports grants from German Cancer Aid and consulting from MSD, outside the submitted work. AS reports participation in Advisory Board/Speaker’s Bureau for Astra Zeneca, AGCT, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Thermo Fisher, grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Chugai, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A patient with gastrointestinal stroma tumor (GIST) and KIT p.V559D and BRAF p.G469A alterations was referred to our institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) to discuss therapeutic implications. The patient had been diagnosed with B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) years prior to the MTB presentation. GIST had been diagnosed 1 month earlier. After structured clinical annotation of the molecular alterations and interdisciplinary discussion, we considered BRAF/KIT co-mutation unlikely in a treatment-naïve GIST. Discordant variant allele frequencies furthermore suggested a second malignancy. NGS of a CLL sample revealed the identical class 2 BRAF alteration, thus supporting admixture of CLL cells in the paragastric mass, leading to the detection of 2 alterations. Following the MTB recommendation, the patient received imatinib and had a radiographic response. Structured annotation and interdisciplinary discussion in specialized tumor boards facilitate the clinical management of complex molecular findings. Coexisting malignancies and clonal hematopoiesis warrant consideration in case of complex and uncommon molecular findings., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Preclinical models of pancreatic cancer (PDAC) suggest a synergistic role for combined MEK and autophagy signaling inhibition, as well as MEK and CDK4/6 pathway targeting. Several case reports implicate clinical activity of the combination of either trametinib and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in patients with KRAS-mutant PDAC or trametinib with CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients with KRAS and CDKN2A/B alterations. However, prospective data from clinical trials is lacking. Here, we aim to provide clinical evidence regarding the use of these experimental regimens in the setting of dedicated precision oncology programs., Methods: In this retrospective case series, PDAC patients who received either trametinib/HCQ (THCQ) or trametinib/palbociclib (TP) were retrospectively identified across 11 participating cancer centers in Germany., Results: Overall, 34 patients were identified. 19 patients received THCQ, and 15 received TP, respectively. In patients treated with THCQ, the median duration of treatment was 46 days, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 52 days and median overall survival (OS) was 68 days. In the THCQ subgroup, all patients evaluable for response (13/19) had progressive disease (PD) within 100 days. In the TP subgroup, the median duration of treatment was 60 days, median PFS was 56 days and median OS was 195 days. In the TP subgroup, 9/15 patients were evaluable for response, of which 1/9 showed a partial response (PR) while 8/9 had PD. One patient achieved a clinical benefit despite progression under TP., Conclusion: THCQ and TP are not effective in patients with advanced PDAC harboring KRAS mutations or alterations in MAPK/CDKN2A/B., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The impact of surgical margins on the prognosis of early breast cancer remains uncertain, particularly in the context of modern treatment approaches. This study aimed to investigate whether involved margins after surgery for early breast cancer affect overall survival., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 3767 patients who underwent surgery for primary breast cancer or carcinoma in situ between 2006 and 2022 at Charité - University Hospital Berlin. Survival analysis based on margin status and a subsequent multivariate Cox regression analysis were conducted., Results: With a median follow-up of 72.2 months, clear margins were achieved in 81.4% of patients (n = 3068) after primary surgery, while 16.2% (n = 610) required re-excision. Only 2.4% of patients (n = 89) had definitively involved margins. Margin involvement was more common in hormone receptor-positive disease, lobular subtype, carcinoma in situ, or locally advanced tumors, but less frequent in patients with previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy or triple-negative breast cancer. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed a significant separation with worse outcomes for patients with definitive R1 resections. However, the multivariate Cox regression analysis detected no statistically significant difference in overall survival based on margin status. Breast conserving surgery (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.54-0.81) and HER2 overexpression (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.89) were associated with improved survival., Conclusion: Patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery in our study demonstrated favorable outcomes compared to patients after mastectomy. Although margin status did not significantly affect overall survival, larger multicenter studies are needed to evaluate the prognostic implications of margin involvement in breast cancer treatment in different tumor stages, tumor subtypes and local and systemic treatments., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Ewing sarcoma is a rare malignant neoplasm that is primarily localized in bone tissues. The prognosis for patients with a newly diagnosed localized Ewing sarcoma has been greatly improved by multimodality treatment. However, treating patients with disseminated or recurrent disease is challenging, with a 5-year overall survival rate of <30%. Case Report: A 17-year-old female with an asymptomatic tumor of the left temple underwent 3 cycles of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide and achieved partial remission. However, the patient refused further chemotherapy and surgical intervention and was lost to follow-up. After 7 months, the patient presented again with a sizeable tumor on her left temple and worsening symptoms. Chemotherapy with alternating cycles of vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and etoposide according to the EURO EWING 2012 trial was initiated. After a positive response, debulking surgery was performed, followed by postsurgical radiation, and partial remission was achieved. Conclusion: Optimal treatment protocols for recurrent Ewing sarcoma are lacking. Treatments are individualized based on the patient's response to treatment and the decisions of tumor boards. Patients with rare tumors such as Ewing sarcoma benefit from multidisciplinary collaboration, resulting in improved quality of care and treatment outcomes., (©2024 by the author(s); Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).)

The circadian clock, a fundamental biological regulator, governs essential cellular processes in health and disease. Circadian-based therapeutic strategies are increasingly gaining recognition as promising avenues. Aligning drug administration with the circadian rhythm can enhance treatment efficacy and minimize side effects. Yet, uncovering the optimal treatment timings remains challenging, limiting their widespread adoption. In this work, we introduce a high-throughput approach integrating live-imaging and data analysis techniques to deep-phenotype cancer cell models, evaluating their circadian rhythms, growth, and drug responses. We devise a streamlined process for profiling drug sensitivities across different times of the day, identifying optimal treatment windows and responsive cell types and drug combinations. Finally, we implement multiple computational tools to uncover cellular and genetic factors shaping time-of-day drug sensitivity. Our versatile approach is adaptable to various biological models, facilitating its broad application and relevance. Ultimately, this research leverages circadian rhythms to optimize anti-cancer drug treatments, promising improved outcomes and transformative treatment strategies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Most mammalian cells have molecular circadian clocks that generate widespread rhythms in transcript and protein abundance. While circadian clocks are robust to fluctuations in the cellular environment, little is known about the mechanisms by which the circadian period compensates for fluctuating metabolic states. Here, we exploit the heterogeneity of single cells both in circadian period and a metabolic parameter-protein stability-to study their interdependence without the need for genetic manipulation. We generated cells expressing key circadian proteins (CRYPTOCHROME1/2 (CRY1/2) and PERIOD1/2 (PER1/2)) as endogenous fusions with fluorescent proteins and simultaneously monitored circadian rhythms and degradation in thousands of single cells. We found that the circadian period compensates for fluctuations in the turnover rates of circadian repressor proteins and uncovered possible mechanisms using a mathematical model. In addition, the stabilities of the repressor proteins are circadian phase dependent and correlate with the circadian period in a phase-dependent manner, in contrast to the prevailing model., Competing Interests: Competing interests statement:The authors declare no competing interest.

Background: Patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Biomarkers such as tumor protein 53 ( TP53 ) in endometrial cancer can integrate novel strategies for improved and individualized treatment that could impact patient outcomes. In an exploratory analysis of the phase III ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study of selinexor maintenance monotherapy 80 mg in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, a pre-specified subgroup of patients with TP53 wild type (wt) endometrial cancer showed preliminary activity at long-term follow-up with a generally manageable safety profile (median progression-free survival 27.4 months vs 5.2 months placebo, HR=0.41)., Primary Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of selinexor compared with placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53 wt endometrial cancer., Study Hypothesis: Selinexor administered at 60 mg weekly as maintenance therapy will show manageable safety and maintain efficacy in patients with TP53 wt advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer after systemic therapy versus placebo., Trial Design: This is a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selinexor as a maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53 wt endometrial cancer., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Eligible patients must have histologically confirmed endometrial cancer, TP53 wt confirmed by next-generation sequencing, completed at least 12 weeks of platinum-based therapy with or without immunotherapy, with confirmed partial response or complete response, and primary Stage IV disease or at first relapse., Primary Endpoint: The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 in the intent-to-treat population., Sample Size: A total of 220 patients will be enrolled., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: Accrual is expected to be completed in 2024 with presentation of results in 2025., Trial Registration: NCT05611931., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IV reports consulting for Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Sanofi, Regeneron, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, Zentalis. APF has received grants/research support from AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, GSK (paid to the institution); participation in a company-sponsored speaker’s bureau for AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK, Clovis, Pharmamar, Pharma&; and honoraria or consultation fees from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, Roche, MSD, Ability Pharma. BJM has received honorarium and consulting fees from Acrivon, Adaptimmune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, ImmunoGen, Karyopharm, Iovance, Laekna Health Care, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastem, Zentalis; and speaker/consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Easai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, TESARO/GSK. TH reports scientific advisory board participation: Aadi, AZ, Caris, Clovis, Corcept, Epsilogen, Eisai, Genentech, GSK, J&J, Merck, Seagen. GV reports grants or contracts from advisory boards of AZ, MSD, Clovis, GSK Pharmamar, Eisai. Consulting fees, honoraria, and support for attending meetings from advisory boards of AZ, MSD, Clovis, GSK, Pharmamar, Eisai. DC has nothing to disclose. NC reports fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, Oncxerna, Pieris, Roche, Novocure; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD/Merck, Eisai; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK; non-remunerated activities as member of the ESMO Guidelines Steering Committee and chair of the Scientific Committee of ACTO (Alleanza contro il tumore Ovarico). BP reports grants, advisory board, and consultant fees; institutional PI for industry sponsored trials from Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genetech/Roche, Celsion, Karyopharm, Mersana, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Toray, Imab, Sutro, SeaGen, Clovis Oncology. Compensated advisory boards include Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Lily, Mersana, Onconova, Merck, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Toray, Sutro, Deciphera, Imab, SeaGen, GOG Foundation. JS reports research funding: Institution: AZ, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Bayer, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Roche. Consulting/advisory boards: AZ, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Merck, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Novocure, J&J, Roche, Ingress Health, Riemser, Sobi, GSK, Novartis; honoraria: AZ, Eisai, Clovis Oncology, Olympus Medical Systems, J&J, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Teva, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, GSK, Bayer. Travel, accommodation, expenses: AZ, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche Pharma AG, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Olympus. JK has nothing to disclose. JB reports participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Mersana, OncoC4, Immingen. Speaker's bureau for AstraZeneca, Merck. CP reports honoraria from Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Genesis, MSD Oncology, Servier, WinMedica; has received fees for consulting or advisory role from Amgen, Astellas, BioPharma, Roche Hellas, Astra Zeneca; and research funding from Roche Hellas, WinMedica, Servier. TvG has received grants/research supports (all paid to institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche; advisory board (all paid to institution): AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, GSK, ImmunoGen, Incyte, Karyopharm, MSD, OncXerna, Seagen, Tubulis, Zentalis; participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau (all paid to institution): GSK, ImmunoGen, MSD. DR has received fees for advisory boards from Mersana, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ProfoundBio, Eisai, Immunogen. Grants/research supports paid to institution from GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Celsion, Mersana, Hookipa, Syros, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, ProfoundBio, CanariaBio, Immunogen, Karyopharm. MMC has nothing to disclose. YA has received grants/research supports from AstraZeneca; honoraria or consultation fees from AstraZeneca; MSD, Eisai, GSK. Consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, GSK, Pfizer. MRM has received grants/research supports from AstraZeneca (institution); Boehringer Ingelheim (institution); Pfizer (institution); Tesaro (institution); honoraria or consultation fees from honoraria: Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Cerulean Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Novocure, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro; consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, BioCad, Cerulean Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Novocure, Pfizer, Tesaro; stock shareholder: Karyopharm Therapeutics, SeraCare; and leadership: Karyopharm Therapeutics. KL is an employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics. PK is an employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics. BS reports consulting or advisory roles for Genentech, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Clovis Oncology, Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, AbbVie Inc., Seagen Inc., Novocure Inc., Novartis, Immunogen, Agenus, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GOG Foundation. RLC has received grant/research support from AstraZeneca/MedImmune (institution), Clovis Oncology (institution), Merck (institution), Roche/Genentech (an immediate family member), Immunogen (institution), Mirati Therapeutics (institution), Amgen (institution), Pfizer (institution), Lilly (institution), Regeneron (institution); honoraria or consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genmab, OncoMed, Immunogen, AbbVie, Agenus, Novocure, Merck, OncXerna Therapeutics, Alkermes, Gradalis, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Karyopharm Therapeutics; stock shareholder from McKesson; and is employed by US Oncology. Leadership: Onxeo. Travel, accommodation, expenses: Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Array BioPharma, Clovis Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Research to Practice, GOG Foundation, Clovis Oncology, Sotio, Vaniam Group., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to provide the 4-week prevalence estimates of mental disorders in newly diagnosed cancer patients in relation to socioeconomic status (SES)., Patients and Methods: We enrolled newly diagnosed patients with a confirmed solid tumor within 2 months of diagnosis. We calculated patients' SES on the basis of their educational level, professional qualification, income and occupational status. We used the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition-Clinical Version (SCID-5-CV) to assess the 4-week prevalence of mental disorders in addition to a comorbidity questionnaire to assess the level of physical impairment., Results: We identified a total of 1702 patients with mixed cancers after reviewing their medical records and contacting them in person or by post due to coronavirus pandemic patient safety restrictions. 1030 patients (53.2% men, mean age 60.2 years) had completed SCID-5-CV. When weighted according to the SES distribution to account for over- and under-sampling of SES groups, 20.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.1% to 23.6%] of patients were diagnosed with any mental disorder. The most prevalent were depressive disorders (9.9%, 95% CI 7.9% to 11.9%), trauma and stress-related disorders (6.3%, 95% CI 4.7% to 7.9%) and anxiety disorders (4.2%, 95% CI 2.9% to 5.6%). We found no difference in any mental disorder between patients with high, medium or low SES. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed higher proportion of patients with any mental disorder in patients younger than 60 years [odds ratio (OR) 0.42; P < 0.001], in patients without a partner (OR 1.84; P < 0.001), in women with tumor in female genital organs (OR 2.45; P < 0.002) and in those with a higher level of impairment (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: SES had no significant influence on mental comorbidity in early cancer survivorship., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Uveal melanoma (UM) has a poor prognosis once liver metastases occur. The melphalan/Hepatic Delivery System (melphalan/HDS) is a drug/device combination used for liver-directed treatment of metastatic UM (mUM) patients. The purpose of the FOCUS study was to assess the efficacy and safety of melphalan/HDS in patients with unresectable mUM., Methods: Eligible patients with mUM received treatment with melphalan (3.0 mg/kg ideal body weight) once every 6 to 8 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: The study enrolled 102 patients with mUM. Treatment was attempted in 95 patients, and 91 patients received treatment. In the treated population (n = 91), the ORR was 36.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 26.44-47.01), including 7.7 % of patients with a complete response. Thus, the study met its primary end point because the lower bound of the 95 % CI for ORR exceeded the upper bound (8.3 %) from the benchmark meta-analysis. The median DOR was 14 months, and the median OS was 20.5 months, with an OS of 80 % at 1 year. The median PFS was 9 months, with a PFS of 65 % at 6 months. The most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (15.8 %) and neutropenia (10.5 %), treated mostly on an outpatient basis with observation. No treatment-related deaths were observed., Conclusion: Treatment with melphalan/HDS provides a clinically meaningful response rate and demonstrates a favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with unresectable mUM (study funded by Delcath; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02678572; EudraCT no. 2015-000417-44)., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Selective neck dissection (SND) is the treatment of choice in patients with oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs) and clinically node-negative necks (cN0). The treatment of patients with positive-staged necks (cN+) includes SND as well as comprehensive neck dissection (CND). The clear benefit of one or the other remains under debate. We aim to address this lack of clarity by analysing patients with OSCC staged with clinically node-positive necks, treated with either CND or SND using a level-by-level approach. This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with OSCC with clinically (cN+) and pathologically (pN+) positive cervical lymph nodes (LNs) with clear neck level categorization during the years 2010-2019. In total, 74 patients were analysed. Cox regression analysis found no significance for the type of ND being an independent risk factor, neither for overall survival (OS) nor for disease-free survival (DFS). Regional recurrence of CND cases (5.77%) was comparable to SND cases (9.09%). For OS, extracapsular spread (ECS) and male sex were identified as independent risk factors with poorer outcome. pT-stage and ECS were found to be independent risk factors for DFS. The results of this study suggest that both CND and SND may be viable treatment options for certain patients with OSCC pN+., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Jan Oliver Voss et al.)

Background: Tebentafusp, a bispecific (gp100×CD3) ImmTAC, significantly improved overall survival (OS) outcomes for HLA-A*02:01+ adult patients with untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) and showed promising survival in previously treated mUM with 1-year OS of 62% in the primary analysis of study IMCgp100-102. Here we report long-term outcomes from this phase 1/2 study in pretreated mUM., Patients and Methods: Patients with previously treated mUM received tebentafusp weekly intravenous at 20 µg dose 1, 30 µg dose 2 and either 54, 64, 68, or 73 µg (phase 1) or 68 µg (phase 2) dose 3+. The primary objective was overall response rate. Secondary objectives included OS and safety. OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Association between OS and baseline covariates, on-treatment Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) response, baseline tumor biopsy and circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) changes were assessed., Results: 146 patients were treated with tebentafusp: 19 in phase 1 and 127 in phase 2. With a median follow-up duration of 48.5 months, the median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 22.8), and the 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year OS rates were 62%, 40%, 23% and 14%, respectively. Improved survival was associated with lower ctDNA baseline levels and greater ctDNA reductions by week 9 on-treatment, with 100% 1-year, 73% 2-year and 45% 3-year OS rates for patients with ctDNA clearance. Baseline gp100 expression was not associated with survival, despite more RECIST responses among patients with higher expression. No new safety signals were reported with long-term dosing., Conclusions: This study represents the longest follow-up of a Tcell receptor bispecific to date and confirms the durable survival benefits achieved with tebentafusp in previously treated mUM with good tolerability long-term. A role for ctDNA reduction as an early indicator of clinical benefit was again suggested for patients treated with tebentafusp., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JJS discloses PI on clinical trial: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Merck, Replimune, Transgene; Research Grant/Contract: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore; Consultant/Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Immunocore, Merck; Congress attendance: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck. RDC discloses Consultant: Aura Biosciences, Castle Biosciences, Chimeron, Immunocore, InxMed, Iovance, Merck, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals Inc., PureTech Health, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Rgenix, Sanofi Genzyme, Sorrento Therapeutics, TriSalus; Stock Option: Aura Biosciences, Chimeron, Rgenix. MOB discloses Consultant/Advisory Board: Adaptimmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Sun Pharma, IDEAYA Bio, Medison, Regeneron and Iovance.; Safety Review Committee: GlaxoSmithKline, Adaptimmune; Research Funding: Merck, Takara Bio, Novartis. ANS discloses Grant/Contract: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Targovax, Pfizer, Alkermes, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Foghorn Therapeutics, Linnaeus Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Pfizer, Polaris, Xcovery. JCH discloses Speaker: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC; Sunpharma; Research grant/contract: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Sunpharma; Consultant/Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals Inc., Philogen, Onkowissen, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Inc. AI discloses Research Funding to Institution: Dynavax, GSK/Sarah Cannon, Immunocore, Merck, Neon Therapeutics/Sarah Cannon, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. LH-A discloses Advisory/Consulting: BMS, Castle Bioscience; Research Funding to Institution: BMS, AstraZeneca, Merck, Amgen, Roche, Regeneron, Novartis, Immunocore, Merck-EMD, Corvus, Polynoma, Genentech, Foghorn. PN discloses Data and Safety Monitoring: 4SC, Achilles; Consultant/Advisory Board: 4SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer; Research Grant/Contract: Immunocore. OH discloses Contract: Aduro biotech, Akeso biotech, Amgen Inc., Beigene Ltd, Bioatla, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech USA, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Incyte Corporation, Janssen Global Services, LLC, Merck, Next Cure Inc., Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, Zelluna Immunotherapy; Contracted Research for Institution: Aduro biotech, Akeso biotech, Amgen Inc., Arcus Biosciences, Bioatla, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CytomX Therapeutics, Exelixis Inc., Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Incyte Corporation, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Merck Serono, Moderna, NextCure Inc., Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics, Torque Pharma, Zelluna Immunotherapy; Speakers Bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer. MR discloses employment and stock ownership in Syapse Inc. DBJ discloses Advisory Boards/Consultant: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko; Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte. JJL discloses DSMB: AbbVie, Agenus, Amgen, Immutep, Evaxion; Scientific Advisory Board: (no stock) 7 Hills, Affivant, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio (stock) Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, physIQ, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest; Consultancy with compensation: AbbVie, Agenus, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Replimmune, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, Synthekine; Research Support: (all to institution for clinical trials unless noted) AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, Xencor; Patents: (both provisional) Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof). EE discloses Advisory Boards/Consultant: Immunocore. SL discloses Consulting: Bayer, Immunocore; Expenses: Bayer. LC discloses Employment and Stock: Immunocore. CH discloses Stock: Amgen Inc., Macrogenics; Employment: Immunocore. TS discloses advisory/consulting: Immunocore, Castle Biosciences; research funding to institution (clinical trials): Immunocore, Verastem, IDEAYA, TriSalus, and BMS., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy., Methods: Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed., Results: Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified., Conclusion: In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: With growing knowledge about ovarian cancer over the last decades, diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of ovarian cancer patients have become highly specialized, and an individually adapted approach should be made in each woman by interdisciplinary cooperation. The present study aims to show the variety and extent of medical specialties involved at our institution according to the European Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ESGO) Quality indicators (QI)., Methods: A woman, diagnosed with high-grade ovarian cancer, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) class IVb was selected for a single case observational study. The observation period (total = 22d) comprised preoperative diagnostic procedures, including imaging, the in-patient stay for cytoreductive surgery, and the postoperative course and case discussion at our interdisciplinary tumor board. Data were obtained by self-reporting and by patient file review., Results: Patient tracking demonstrated an interdisciplinary cooperation of 12 medical specialties [62 physicians (63% male, 37% female)], 8 different types of nursing staff [n = 59 (22% male, 78% female)], and 9 different types of perioperative/administrative staff (n = 23; male 17,4%, female n = 19, 82,6%). Contact with the patient was direct (n = 199; 76%) or without face-to-face interaction (n = 63; 24%)., Conclusion: The present study demonstrates the high diversity of physicians and the affiliated medical staff, as well as interdisciplinary intersections within teams of a specialized hospital. Matching the ESGO QIs, this report underlines the requirement of an adequate infrastructure for the complex management of advanced ovarian cancer patients. Future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the specific procedures and actions to optimize the interprofessional and interdisciplinary workflows., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: In relapsed or refractory (RR) metastatic germ cell cancer (GCC), high-dose (HD) chemotherapy (CTX) plus autologous stem cell transplantation is considered the standard of care. Limited data exist regarding the efficacy of HD-CTX following conventionally dosed salvage regimens (CDRs). This analysis explores and contrasts the efficacy of HD-CTX as the first or subsequent salvage regimen., Patients and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected to explore the efficacy of HD-CTX administered as the first (group A) or subsequent salvage CTX (group B) after a CDR. The primary endpoint was OS from the time of HD-CTX. Associations of survival, overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity with clinical characteristics were explored using stratified Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models., Results: Overall, 283 patients with GCC were included from 11 international centers, with 159 patients (56%) in group A and 124 patients (44%) in group B. The first salvage treatment was administered between 1998 and 2022, with a median follow-up of 27.0 [standard deviation (SD) 46.2] months for group A and 17.0 (SD 48.5) months for group B. The median OS from HD-CTX treatment initiation was not reached in group A, compared with 25 months in group B (P = 0.00027), associated with 2- and 5-year OS rates of 74% and 63% (group A) versus 53% and 37% (group B), respectively. When administered as the first salvage treatment, HD-CTX was associated with a higher ORR (79% versus 60%; P = 0.013) and lower nonhematologic grade ≥3 toxicity rate (78% versus 97%; P < 0.001). Concerning risk factor analysis for the total cohort, the International Prognostic Factors Study Group score was the only independent predictor of OS in multivariable analysis (P = 0.006)., Conclusions: When administered as the initial salvage treatment or after CDR, HD-CTX exhibits curative potential for patients with RR GCC. The efficacy and safety outcomes were more favorable when HD-CTX was conducted as the first salvage treatment line., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In recent years, utilization of emergency departments (EDs) has increased continuously, both in Germany and internationally. Inappropriate use of EDs is believed to be partly responsible for this trend. The topic of doctor-patient interaction (DPI) has received little attention in research. However, successful DPI is not only important for adherence and treatment success, but also for the satisfaction of medical staff. This non-interventionl cross-sectional study attempts to identify factors influencing physicians' satisfaction with DPIs, with a particular focus on the appropriate utilization of EDs and verbal communication. We carried out tripartite data collection in three EDs of major referral hospitals in Berlin between July 2017 and July 2018. Migration experience, communication and language problems, level of education, and a large gap between physicians' and patients' perceived urgency regarding the utilization of EDs influence the quality of the doctor-patient relationships and interactions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: This study describes the morphologic and phenotypic spatial heterogeneity of tumor cells and the tissue microenvironment (TME), focusing on immune infiltration in OSCCs., Study Design: Patients with OSCCs and planned surgical tumor resection were eligible for the study. Two biopsies each from the tumor center and the tumor rim were obtained. Immunohistochemical characterization of tumor and immune cells was performed using a panel of immunohistochemical markers., Results: Thirty-six biopsies were obtained from the 9 patients. All patients showed an individual marker expression profile with ITH. Within the same biopsy, the CPS and TPS scores showed relevant variations in PD-L1 expression. Comparisons between the tumor center and rim revealed significant differences in the up/downregulation of p53. Marker expression of patients with recurrences clustered similarly, with the higher expression of FoxP3, IDO, CD4, CD68, and CD163 at the tumor rim., Conclusion: OSCCs were found to exhibit relevant ITH involving both tumor cells and TME, suggesting that biomarker analysis of multiple tumor regions may be helpful for clinical decision making and tumor characterization. The analysis of multiple spots within a biopsy is recommended for a reliable determination of PD-L1 expression and other biomarkers, impacting current clinical assessments., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tebentafusp demonstrated a superior overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51] compared to investigator's choice (82% pembrolizumab) in a randomized, phase III trial (IMCgp100-202; N = 378) in untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). The 1-year OS rates for tebentafusp and pembrolizumab were 73% and 59%, respectively. In the single-arm GEM1402 (N = 52), the 1-year OS rate for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) in mUM was 52%. Due to limitations in conducting randomized trials in mUM, we compared OS on tebentafusp or pembrolizumab (IMCgp100-202) to N+I (GEM1402) in untreated mUM using propensity scoring methods., Patients and Methods: Analyses were adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), balancing age, sex, baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), baseline alkaline phosphatase, disease location, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and time from primary diagnosis to metastasis. OS was assessed using IPT-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses using alternative missing data and weights methods were conducted., Results: The primary IPTW analysis included 240 of 252 patients randomized to tebentafusp from IMCgp100-202 and 45 of 52 N+I-treated patients from GEM-1402. Key baseline covariates, including LDH, were generally well balanced before weighting. The IPTW-adjusted OS favored tebentafusp, HR 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.78]; 1-year OS was 73% for tebentafusp versus 50% for N+I. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent superior OS for tebentafusp with all IPTW HRs ≤0.61. IPTW analysis of pembrolizumab versus N+I showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.06)., Conclusions: Tebentafusp was previously shown to provide an OS benefit compared to checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy in untreated mUM. Propensity score analysis demonstrated a similar OS benefit for tebentafusp compared with N+I. These data further support tebentafusp as the standard of care in previously untreated human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A∗02:01+ adult patients with mUM., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that treatment of NSCLC brain metastases with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is associated with response rates similar to those of extracranial disease. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) serves as a predictive biomarker for ICI response. However, the predictive value of brain metastasis-specific (intracranial) PD-L1 TPS is not established. We investigated the role of intra- and extracranial PD-L1 TPS in NSCLC patients treated with ICI following brain metastasis resection., Methods: Clinical data from NSCLC patients treated with ICI following brain metastasis resection (n = 64) were analyzed. PD-L1 TPS of brain metastases (n = 64) and available matched extracranial tumor tissue (n = 44) were assessed via immunohistochemistry. Statistical analyses included cut point estimation via maximally selected rank statistics, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and multivariable Cox regression analysis for intracranial progression-free survival (icPFS), extracranial progression-free survival (ecPFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: PD-L1 expression was found in 54.7% of brain metastases and 68.2% of extracranial tumor tissues, with a median intra- and extracranial PD-L1 TPS of 7.5% (0 - 50%, IQR) and 15.0% (0 - 80%, IQR), respectively. In matched tissue samples, extracranial PD-L1 TPS was significantly higher than intracranial PD-L1 TPS (p = 0.013). Optimal cut points for intracranial and extracranial PD-L1 TPS varied according to outcome parameter assessed. Notably, patients with a high intracranial PD-L1 TPS (> 40%) exhibited significantly longer icPFS as compared to patients with a low intracranial PD-L1 TPS (≤ 40%). The cut point of 40% for intracranial PD-L1 TPS was independently associated with OS, icPFS and ecPFS in multivariable analyses., Conclusion: Our study highlights the potential role of intracranial PD-L1 TPS in NSCLC, which could be used to predict ICI response in cases where extracranial tissue is not available for PD-L1 assessment as well as to specifically predict intracranial response., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: We aimed to evaluate the applicability of a customized NanoString panel for molecular subtyping of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M-HNSCC). Additionally, histological analyses were conducted, correlated with the molecular subtypes and tested for their prognostic value., Material and Methods: We conducted molecular subtyping of R/M-HNSCC according to the molecular subtypes defined by Keck et al. For molecular analyses a 231 gene customized NanoString panel (the most accurately subtype defining genes, based on previous analyses) was applied to tumor samples from R/M-HNSCC patients that were treated in the CeFCiD trial (AIO/IAG-KHT trial 1108). A total of 130 samples from 95 patients were available for sequencing, of which 80 samples from 67 patients passed quality controls and were included in histological analyses. H&E stained slides were evaluated regarding distinct morphological patterns (e.g. tumor budding, nuclear size, stroma content)., Results: Determination of molecular subtypes led to classification of tumor samples as basal (n = 46, 45 %), inflamed/mesenchymal (n = 31, 30 %) and classical (n = 26, 25 %). Expression levels of Amphiregulin (AREG) were significantly higher for the basal and classical subtypes compared to the mesenchymal subtype. While molecular subtypes did not have an impact on survival, high levels of tumor budding were associated with poor outcomes. No correlation was found between molecular subtypes and histological characteristics., Conclusions: Utilizing the 231-gene NanoString panel we were able to determine the molecular subtype of R/M-HNSCC samples by the use of FFPE material. The value to stratify for different treatment options remains to be explored in the future. The prognostic value of tumor budding was underscored in this clinically well annotated cohort., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Selinexor inhibits exportin-1 (XPO1) resulting in nuclear accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins including p53 and has clinical activity in endometrial cancer (EC). The primary end point was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) with once-weekly oral selinexor in patients with advanced or recurrent EC., Patients and Methods: ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO was a randomized, prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study at 107 sites in 10 countries. Patients 18 years or older with histologically confirmed EC were enrolled. All had completed a single line of at least 12 weeks of taxane-platinum combination chemotherapy and achieved partial or complete response. Patients were assigned to receive 80 mg oral selinexor once weekly or placebo with 2:1 random assignment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03555422)., Results: Between January 2018 and December 2021, 263 patients were randomly assigned, with 174 allocated to selinexor and 89 to placebo. The median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.81 to 9.20) with selinexor versus 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.68 to 7.39) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.08]; two-sided P = .126), which did not meet the criteria for statistical significance in the intent-to-treat population. Incorrect chemotherapy response stratification data for 7 (2.7%) patients were identified. In a prespecified exploratory analysis of PFS in audited stratification data, PFS for selinexor met the threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.499 to 0.996; two-sided P = .049). Furthermore, patients with the TP53 wild-type (wt) EC had a median PFS of 13.7 and 3.7 months with selinexor and placebo. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were nausea (9%), neutropenia (9%), and thrombocytopenia (7%)., Conclusion: The significance level for PFS was only met in the audited analysis. However, a preliminary analysis of a prespecified exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53 wt EC showed promising results with selinexor maintenance therapy.

Background: Identification of cancer metastasis-relevant molecular networks is desired to provide the basis for understanding and developing intervention strategies. Here we address the role of GIPC1 in the process of MACC1-driven metastasis. MACC1 is a prognostic indicator for patient metastasis formation and metastasis-free survival. MACC1 controls gene transcription, promotes motility, invasion and proliferation of colon cancer cells in vitro , and causes tumor growth and metastasis in mice., Methods: By using yeast-two-hybrid assay, mass spectrometry, co-immunoprecipitation and peptide array we analyzed GIPC1 protein binding partners, by using the MACC1 gene promoter and chromatin immunoprecipitation and electrophoretic mobility shift assay we probed for GIPC1 as transcription factor. We employed GIPC1/MACC1-manipulated cell lines for in vitro and in vivo analyses, and we probed the GIPC1/MACC1 impact using human primary colorectal cancer (CRC) tissue., Results: We identified MACC1 and its paralogue SH3BP4 as protein binding partners of the protein GIPC1, and we also demonstrated the binding of GIPC1 as transcription factor to the MACC1 promoter (TSS to -60 bp). GIPC1 knockdown reduced endogenous, but not CMV promoter-driven MACC1 expression, and diminished MACC1-induced cell migration and invasion. GIPC1 suppression reduced tumor growth and metastasis in mice intrasplenically transplanted with MACC1-overexpressing CRC cells. In human primary CRC specimens, GIPC1 correlates with MACC1 expression and is of prognostic value for metastasis formation and metastasis-free survival. Combination of MACC1 and GIPC1 expression improved patient survival prognosis, whereas SH3BP4 expression did not show any prognostic value., Conclusions: We identified an important, dual function of GIPC1 - as protein interaction partner and as transcription factor of MACC1 - for tumor progression and cancer metastasis., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2023 Siegel, Schmidt, Juneja, Smith, Herrmann, Kobelt, Sharma, Fichtner, Walther, Dittmar, Volkmer, Rathjen, Schlag and Stein.)

Purpose: Patients with cancer suffer from a wide range of psychological distress. Nevertheless, in the literature low utilization rates of psychooncological services are reported. Various factors may influence the utilization of professional support during inpatient care. Up to now it is unclear to what extent patients' attitude towards psychooncological support and physicians' recommendation for psychooncological care may influence the utilization., Methods: In a multicenter longitudinal observational study in Comprehensive Cancer Centers Germany, 1398 patients with mixed cancer diagnoses were assessed at baseline during their hospital stay with respect to psychooncological distress and the need for and use of psychooncological services., Results: Psychooncological support was used by almost 28.4% of patients up to this time. A positive attitude towards psychooncological support was reported by 41.6%. A recommendation of psychooncological support by a physician was received by 16.2%. These patients reported a significant higher level of distress compared to patients who did not received a recommendation. Multivariable logistic regression detected that the utilization rate was 3.79 times higher among patients with positive attitude towards psychooncological support (OR, 3.79; 95% CI 2.51-5.73, p < 0.001). Utilization was 4.21 times more likely among patients who received a physician´s recommendation (OR, 4.21; 95% CI 2.98-5.95, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The results of the study provide evidence of the relevance of giving more attention to psychooncological distress and attitudes towards psychooncological care. To reduce reservations, patients need low-threshold information about the psychooncological services offered., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

We evaluated whether the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT can adequately answer patient questions related to [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT in common clinical indications before and after scanning. Methods: Thirteen questions regarding [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT were submitted to ChatGPT. ChatGPT was also asked to explain 6 PET/CT reports (lung cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma) and answer 6 follow-up questions (e.g., on tumor stage or recommended treatment). To be rated "useful" or "appropriate," a response had to be adequate by the standards of the nuclear medicine staff. Inconsistency was assessed by regenerating responses. Results: Responses were rated "appropriate" for 92% of 25 tasks and "useful" for 96%. Considerable inconsistencies were found between regenerated responses for 16% of tasks. Responses to 83% of sensitive questions (e.g., staging/treatment options) were rated "empathetic." Conclusion: ChatGPT might adequately substitute for advice given to patients by nuclear medicine staff in the investigated settings. Improving the consistency of ChatGPT would further increase reliability., (© 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Cells must accurately and quickly detect DNA damage through a set of checkpoint mechanisms that enable repair and control proliferation. Heterogeneous levels of cellular stress and noisy signaling processes can lead to phenotypic variability but little is known about their role in underlying proliferation heterogeneity. Here we study two previously published single cell datasets and find that cells encode heterogeneous levels of endogenous and exogenous DNA damage to shape proliferation heterogeneity at the population level. Using a comprehensive time series analysis of short- and long-term signaling dynamics of p53 and p21, we show that DNA damage levels are quantitatively translated into p53 and p21 signal parameters in a gradual manner. Analyzing instantaneous proliferation and signaling differences among equally-radiated cells, we identify time-localized changes in the period of p53 pulses that drive cells out of a low proliferative state. Our findings suggest a novel role of the p53-p21 network in quantitatively encoding DNA damage strength and fine-tuning proliferation trajectories., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The national Network Genomic Medicine (nNGM) Lung Cancer provides comprehensive and high-quality multiplex molecular diagnostics and standardized personalized treatment recommendation for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in Germany. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the nNGM precision medicine program in terms of overall survival (OS) using real-world data (RWD)., Methods: A historical nationwide cohort analysis of patients with aNSCLC and initial diagnosis between 04/2019 and 06/2020 was conducted to compare treatment and OS of patients with and without nNGM-participation. Patients participating within the nNGM (nNGM group) were selected based on a prospective nNGM database. The electronic health records (EHR) of the prospective nNGM database were case-specifically linked to claims data (AOK, German health insurance). The control group was selected from claims data of patients receiving usual care without nNGM-participation (non-nNGM group). The minimum follow-up period was six months., Findings: Overall, n = 509 patients in the nNGM group and n = 7213 patients in the non-nNGM group met the inclusion criteria. Patients participating in the nNGM had a significantly improved OS compared to the non-nNGM group (median OS: 10.5 months vs. 8.7 months, p  = 0.008, HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95). The 1-year survival rates were 46.8% (nNGM) and 41.3% (non-nNGM). The use of approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in the first-line setting was significantly higher in the nNGM group than in the non-nNGM group (nNGM: 8.4% (43/509) vs. non-nNGM: 5.1% (366/7213), p  = 0.001). Overall, patients receiving first-line TKI treatment had significantly higher 1-year OS rates than patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and/or chemotherapy (67.2% vs. 40.2%, p  < 0.001)., Interpretation: This is the first study to demonstrate a significant survival benefit and higher utilization of targeted therapies for aNSCLC patients participating within nNGM. Our data indicate that precision medicine programs can enhance collaborative personalized lung cancer care and promote the implementation of treatment innovations and the latest scientific knowledge into clinical routine care., Funding: The study was funded by the AOK Federal Association Germany., Competing Interests: AKä, nvdB, KM, and WH declare financial support from the Federal Association of the AOK, Berlin, Germany (e.g., for performing the analyses and writing the manuscript), as stated in the manuscript. MSche received institutional grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dracen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Siemens Healthineers, personal consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Siemens Healthineers and Takeda, honoraria or payment for educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and Takeda; received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; and reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board at Boehringer Ingelheim, a leadership or fiduciary role (unpaid) at the ESMO Lung Cancer Faculty, ESMO Climate Change Task Force and the EORTC Lung Cancer group. DTR received payment or honoraria from Roche (Bristol Myers Squibb), Bayer and Lilly for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer. MSchu received institutional grants from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb, consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and Takeda, payment or honoraria from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events; received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Amgen; and participated in Data Safety Monitoring Boards or Advisory Boards at Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Janssen, Tacalyx, Abalos and GlaxoSmithKline. MW received institutional grants from Roche, personal consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Immatics, Bayer and ImCheck Therapeutics, payment or honoraria for educational events from Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, SYNLAB, Janssen, Merck Serono, GWT-TUD GmbH, Amgen and Novartis; he received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Amgen, GEMoaB, Sanofi-Aventis, Immatics, Merck Serono and Daiichi Sankyo and honoraria for participation in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of ISA Pharmaceuticals. FK received payment or honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Lilly, Agilent, Bayer, Merck and Trillium for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events and is a board member at the National Pathologists’ Association Germany; and received personal honoraria for lectures by AstraZeneca and Novartis and participated in an advisory board by AstraZeneca. MSe received grants from AstraZeneca and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Takeda, Johnson, Merck-Serono and GSK; received payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Takeda, Johnson, CureVac, BioNTech, Merck-Serono, GSK, Daiichi and Pfizer for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events; and received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and participated in a Data Safety Monitoring Board at Amgen. CB received consulting fees from the AOK NRW-Hamburg, and honoraria for participation in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Serono and Sanofi-Aventis; received payment or honoraria for lectures given for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Pharma and Sanofi-Aventis; and received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sanofi-Aventis, Janssen-Cilag and has an unpaid leadership or fiduciary role at DGHO, DKG-Zertifizierungskommission and CCC Netzwerk. RB received payment or honoraria for lectures and participation in advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Illumina, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Qiagen, Pfizer, Roche and Targos MP Inc.; and reports a leadership or fiduciary role as co-founder and co-owner of Gnothis Inc (SE) and Timer Therapeutics Inc (GE). JW received funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Turning Point. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Importance: Clinical interpretation of complex biomarkers for precision oncology currently requires manual investigations of previous studies and databases. Conversational large language models (LLMs) might be beneficial as automated tools for assisting clinical decision-making., Objective: To assess performance and define their role using 4 recent LLMs as support tools for precision oncology., Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study examined 10 fictional cases of patients with advanced cancer with genetic alterations. Each case was submitted to 4 different LLMs (ChatGPT, Galactica, Perplexity, and BioMedLM) and 1 expert physician to identify personalized treatment options in 2023. Treatment options were masked and presented to a molecular tumor board (MTB), whose members rated the likelihood of a treatment option coming from an LLM on a scale from 0 to 10 (0, extremely unlikely; 10, extremely likely) and decided whether the treatment option was clinically useful., Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of treatment options, precision, recall, F1 score of LLMs compared with human experts, recognizability, and usefulness of recommendations., Results: For 10 fictional cancer patients (4 with lung cancer, 6 with other; median [IQR] 3.5 [3.0-4.8] molecular alterations per patient), a median (IQR) number of 4.0 (4.0-4.0) compared with 3.0 (3.0-5.0), 7.5 (4.3-9.8), 11.5 (7.8-13.0), and 13.0 (11.3-21.5) treatment options each was identified by the human expert and 4 LLMs, respectively. When considering the expert as a criterion standard, LLM-proposed treatment options reached F1 scores of 0.04, 0.17, 0.14, and 0.19 across all patients combined. Combining treatment options from different LLMs allowed a precision of 0.29 and a recall of 0.29 for an F1 score of 0.29. LLM-generated treatment options were recognized as AI-generated with a median (IQR) 7.5 (5.3-9.0) points in contrast to 2.0 (1.0-3.0) points for manually annotated cases. A crucial reason for identifying AI-generated treatment options was insufficient accompanying evidence. For each patient, at least 1 LLM generated a treatment option that was considered helpful by MTB members. Two unique useful treatment options (including 1 unique treatment strategy) were identified only by LLM., Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, treatment options of LLMs in precision oncology did not reach the quality and credibility of human experts; however, they generated helpful ideas that might have complemented established procedures. Considering technological progress, LLMs could play an increasingly important role in assisting with screening and selecting relevant biomedical literature to support evidence-based, personalized treatment decisions.

Purpose: We present the results of a post hoc tumor tissue analysis from the phase 3 MILO/ENGOT-ov11 study (NCT01849874)., Patients and Methods: Mutation/copy-number analysis was performed on tissue obtained pre-randomization. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS). Unbiased univariate analysis, Cox regression, and binary logistic regression were used to test associations between mutation status and outcomes, including PFS and binary response by local RECIST 1.1., Results: MILO/ENGOT-ov11 enrolled 341 patients, ranging in age from 22 to 79, from June, 2013 to April, 2016. Patients were randomized 2:1 to binimetinib or physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCC). The most commonly altered gene was KRAS (33%). In 135 patients treated with binimetinib with response rate (RR) data, other detected MAPK pathway alterations included: NRAS (n = 11, 8.1%), BRAF V600E (n = 8, 5.9%), RAF1 (n = 2, 1.5%), and NF1 (n = 7, 5.2%). In those with and without MAPK pathway alterations, the RRs with binimetinib were 41% and 13%, respectively. PFS was significantly longer in patients with, compared with those without, MAPK pathway alterations treated with binimetinib [HR, 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.79]. There was a nonsignificant trend toward PFS improvement in PCC-treated patients with MAPK pathway alterations compared with those without (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.43-1.59)., Conclusions: Although this hypothesis-generating analysis is limited by multiple testing, higher RRs and longer PFS were seen in patients with low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) treated with binimetinib, and to a lesser extent in those treated with PCC, who harbored MAPK pathway alterations. Somatic tumor testing should be routinely considered in patients with LGSOC and used as a future stratification factor., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Acceptance of cultural diversity and the recognition and appreciation of facets of "otherness" such as gender, age, occupational or disease-related group, religion, sociocultural background, and migration history are basic requirements for adequate communication and interaction in healthcare. The term intercultural competence is multidimensional and includes a range of qualities and skills with emotional and cognitive elements with influence on the behavioral level. In the present paper, we discuss the importance of intercultural competence for the healthcare system and which aspects of the intercultural communication are particularly relevant for culturally sensitive medical care. Additionally, we report on the implementation of an interprofessional program and continuing education concept for clinical practice: Interprofessional and Intercultural Work in Medicine, Nursing and Social Services (IPIKA).The basis of the specific approaches to improving intercultural competence should be the systematic education and training of basic communication skills. This concerns almost all curricula for the medical professions. It is important to emphasize that intercultural competence is a core and cross-sectional topic for all healthcare providers., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: CB-103 selectively inhibits the CSL-NICD (Notch intracellular domain) interaction leading to transcriptional downregulation of oncogenic Notch pathway activation. This dose-escalation/expansion study aimed to determine safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity., Experimental Design: Patients ≥18 years of age with selected advanced solid tumors [namely, adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC)] and hematologic malignancies were eligible. CB-103 was dosed orally in cycles of 28 days at escalating doses until disease progression. Notch-activating mutations were required in a dose confirmatory cohort. Endpoints included dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), safety, tumor response, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. Exploratory analyses focused on correlates of Notch and target gene expression., Results: Seventy-nine patients (64, 12 dose-escalation cohorts; 15, confirmatory cohort) enrolled with 54% receiving two or more lines of prior therapy. ACC was the dominant tumor type (40, 51%). Two DLTs were observed [elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), visual change]; recommended phase II dose was declared as 500 mg twice daily (5 days on, 2 days off weekly). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 patients (19%), including elevated liver function tests (LFTs), anemia, and visual changes. Five (6%) discontinued drug for toxicity; with no drug-related deaths. There were no objective responses, but 37 (49%) had stable disease; including 23 of 40 (58%) patients with ACC. In the ACC cohort, median progression-free survival was 2.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-3.7] and median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% CI, 6.3-not reached)., Conclusions: CB-103 had a manageable safety profile and biological activity but limited clinical antitumor activity as monotherapy in this first-in-human study., Significance: CB-103 is a novel oral pan-Notch inhibitor that selectively blocks the CSL-NICD interaction leading to transcriptional downregulation of oncogenic Notch pathway activation. This first-in-human dose-escalation and -confirmation study aimed to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor efficacy of CB-103. We observed a favorable safety profile with good tolerability and biological activity but limited clinical single-agent antitumor activity. Some disease stabilization was observed among an aggressive NOTCH-mutant ACC type-I subgroup where prognosis is poor and therapies are critically needed. Peripheral downregulation of select Notch target gene levels was observed with escalating doses. Future studies exploring CB-103 should enrich for patients with NOTCH-mutant ACC and investigate rational combinatorial approaches in tumors where there is limited success with investigational or approved drugs., (© 2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Peritoneal carcinomatosis-associated malignant bowel obstruction is a common feature that merits more attention in advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer. Decompressive gastrostomy is one of the most preferred methods to palliate distressing symptoms and maintain patients' quality of life. We retrospectively identified 31 patients with ovarian cancer-associated MBO, who underwent decompressive CT fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous gastrostomy (CT-PG) between September 2015 and April 2023 at our institution. A systematic literature review was conducted for CT-guided gastrostomy in ovarian cancer. Prior to CT-PG, 27 (87%) patients underwent unsuccessful attempts at endoscopic gastrostomy or surgery due to bowel obstruction; a total of 55% had received ≥3 lines of chemotherapy. CT-PG could be successfully inserted in 25 of 31 (81%) patients without grade 4-5 complications. CT-PG insertion was feasible in 76% of patients with previous unsuccessful attempts of endoscopic gastrostomy. A total of 80% of patients with a successful insertion had considerable symptom relief and could tolerate fluid intake. Mean survival after the procedure was 44.4 days. Chemotherapy could be administered in 7 of 25 (28%) patients following the CT-PG insertion. CT-guided percutaneous gastrostomy is a safe procedure that effectively manages intractable symptoms of bowel obstruction in ovarian cancer. This minimally invasive technique should be emphasised as a routine instrument within the palliative management of MBO.

Background: The impact of tumour mutational burden (TMB) on outcome with molecularly matched therapy is unknown. Higher TMB could predict resistance to molecularly matched therapy through co-occurring driver mutations., Methods: One hundred and four patients with advanced cancers underwent molecular profiling in the DKTK-MASTER program. Fifty-five patients received systemic therapy excluding immunotherapy. Patients with molecularly matched (n = 35) or non-molecularly informed therapy (n = 20) were analysed for TMB and survival. Results were validated in an independent cohort of patients receiving molecularly matched (n = 68) or non-molecularly informed therapy (n = 40). Co-occurring driver mutations and TMB were analysed in the exploratory cohort and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets., Results: Patients were stratified by the median TMB of 1.67 mutations per Megabase (mut/Mb) of 35 patients receiving molecularly matched therapy into TMB-high or TMB-low groups. Median overall survival (4 months [95% CI, 3.3-7.6] versus 12.8 months [95% CI, 10-not reached], p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (1.8 months [95% CI, 1.1-3.7] versus 7.9 months [95% CI, 2.8-17.0], p = 0.003) were significantly shorter in the TMB-high group compared to the TMB-low group. In the validation cohort, shorter OS and PFS were identified in the TMB-high group (TMB cut-off of 4 mut/Mb) treated with molecularly matched therapy. No differences were observed in patients receiving non-molecularly informed systemic therapy. A significant correlation between co-occurring driver mutations and TMB (n = 104, r = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.68-0.85], p < 0.001) was found in the exploratory cohort as well as the majority (24/33) of TCGA studies., Conclusion: A high TMB was associated with unfavourable outcome in patients receiving molecularly matched therapy, indicating untargeted resistance pathways. Therefore, TMB should be further investigated as a predictive biomarker in precision oncology programs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Till de Bortoli, Manuela Benary, Mario Lamping, Reinhold Schäfer and Frederick Klauschen report no potential conflicts of interest. Peter Horak reported consulting or advisory board membership for Platomics and honoraria from Platomics, Roche. Sebastian Stintzing has received honoraria/consulting or advisory role from Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, research funding from Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, travel, accommodation and expenses support from Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Merck KgaA, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Sirtex Medical and Takeda. Inge Tinhofer reports honoraria/consulting or advisory role for Merck KgaA and MerckSerono. Serge Leyvraz reports consulting or advisory role and travel expenses support from Bayer. Ulrich Keller reports a consulting role for Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Pentixapharm and honoraria from Gilead, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Takeda, MSD, as well as research funding from Celgene, Takeda, BMS, Roche, Astra-Zeneka, Novartis, MSD, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer. Other support was declared from Roche, BMS, Gilead, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag and Celgene. Albrecht Stenzinger reported Advisory Board/Speaker’s Bureau from Aignostics, Astra Zeneca, AGCT, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Incyte, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Thermo Fisher and research grants from Bayer, BMS, Chugai, Incyte. Stefan Fröhling reported consulting or advisory board membership from Bayer, Illumina, Roche; honoraria: Amgen, Eli Lilly, PharmaMar, Roche and research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, as well as travel or accommodation expenses support from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Illumina, PharmaMar, Roche. Razelle Kurzrock has received research funding from Biological Dynamics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Debiopharm, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Grifols, Guardant, Incyte, Konica Minolta, Medimmune, Merck Serono, Omniseq, Pfizer, Sequenom, Takeda, and TopAlliance; as well as consultant and/or speaker fees and/or advisory board for Actuate Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bicara Therapeutics, Biological Dynamics, EISAI, EOM Pharmaceuticals, Iylon, Merck, NeoGenomics, Neomed, Pfizer, Prosperdtx, Roche, TD2/Volastra, Turning Point Therapeutics, X-Biotech and has an equity interest in CureMatch Inc., CureMetrix, and IDbyDNA; She also serves on the Board of CureMatch and CureMetrix,and is a co-founder of CureMatch. Ulrich Keilholz has received advisory board/speaker bureau, trial support, research collaboration or research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glycotope, Innate, Lilly, Medimmune, MerckSerono, MSD/Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and Sirtex. Damian Rieke has received consultant and/or advisory board and/or speaker fees from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Lilly. Ivan Jelas has received consultant and/or advisory board and/or speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Roche., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify prognostic factors for evidence-based risk stratification in malignant salivary gland tumors., Methods: This retrospective study identified 162 patients who presented with malignant salivary gland tumors between 2010 and 2020. Final analysis included 91 patients who underwent surgical treatment at our institution and were followed-up for ≥ 1 year. Medical records were reviewed and patients were categorized according to their risk profile., Results: This study included 91 patients (51 males, 40 females, mean age 61 years). The most frequent entities were adenoid cystic carcinoma (n = 13, 14.3%) and mucoepidermoid carcinoma (n = 12, 13.2%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a five-year overall survival (OS) of 66.2% and a recurrence-free survival (RFS) of 50.5%. Age > 60 years (p = 0.011), categorization into high-risk group (p = 0.011), UICC stage (p = 0.020), T stage (p = 0.032), grading (p = 0.045) and vascular invasion (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with OS; age > 60 years (p = 0.014), categorization into high-risk group (p < 0.001), UICC stage (p = 0.021), T stage (p = 0.017), grading (p = 0.011), vascular invasion (p = 0.012) and lymphovascular invasion (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with RFS. Multivariate Cox regression with backward elimination identified T stage (HR 1.835; 95% CI 1.187-2.836; p = 0.006) and grading (HR 2.233; 95% CI 1.113-4.480; p = 0.024) as significant factors for OS. Grading (HR 2.499; 95% CI 1.344-4.648; p = 0.004) was confirmed as a significant factor for RFS., Conclusion: Considering the risk of recurrence and distant metastasis in malignant salivary gland tumors, locoregional surgical control may not be sufficient and adjuvant therapies such as radiotherapy and/or systemic therapies should be considered., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Tebentafusp is a new T cell receptor bispecific fusion protein and the first approved treatment option for human leucocyte antigen-A*02:01 (HLA-A*02:01) metastatic uveal melanoma, with a proven benefit in overall survival versus the investigator's choice. As a first-in-class therapeutic option, this Immune mobilising monoclonal T cell receptor Against Cancer (ImmTAC) is associated with a new adverse event (AE) profile. Based on clinical experience, a national expert group discussed recommendations for tebentafusp treatment, focusing on AE management. Further topics included prerequisites for initiating tebentafusp treatment, appropriate treatment setting, and patient selection criteria. To provide guidance for treating physicians, the resulting recommendations are summarised including a model standard operating procedure for AE management. Patients in good clinical condition and with a low tumour burden are good candidates for tebentafusp treatment, particularly if treated as early as possible after the diagnosis of metastatic disease. The safety profile of tebentafusp is manageable and includes two major pathologies: cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and skin-related events. Postdose monitoring should thus focus on pyrexia and hypotension as the first symptoms of cytokine release. To minimise the risk of hypotension associated with CRS, patients should receive intravenous fluids before starting treatment. The monitoring of liver values is crucial, as patients may experience an increase in transaminases, which can even manifest as tumour lysis syndrome., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Carola Berking reports honoraria for talks from Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Sanofi and for advisory boards from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Andrea Forschner reports honoraria for talks from Bristol-Myers Squibb, CeGaT, MSD, Novartis, and Roche and for advisory boards from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; she reports travel expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. Christoffer Gebhardt reports honoraria for talks from Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, SUN Pharma and for advisory boards from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, SUN Pharma; he received travel expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb and SUN Pharma. Founder Dermagnostix and Dermagnostix R&D. Jessica Hassel reports honoraria for talks from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, SUN Pharma and for advisory boards from GSK, MSD, Pierre Fabre, SUN Pharma, Onkowissen; she reports travel expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Iovance, SUN Pharma. Axel Hauschild reports speaker’s honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, MerckPfizer, MSD/Merck, Novartis Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme; he reports advisory boards from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Immunocore, MerckPfizer, MSD/Merck, Novartis Pharma, Regeneron, Replimune, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and consultancy for Dermagnostix, Eisai, Highlight Therapeutics, Incyte, IO Biotech, MSD/Merck, NeraCare, Novartis Pharma, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Seagen; he reports clinical trial support (grant to institution) from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Huya Biosciences, MerckPfizer, MSD/Merck, NeraCare, Novartis Pharma, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme. Lucie Heinzerling reports speakers and advisory board honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CureVac AG, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Pierre Fabre Pharma GmbH, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, SUN Pharmaceuticals Germany GmbH, Therakos. Friedegund Meier reports travel support or/and speaker’s fees or/and advisor’s honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi; she reports research funding from Novartis and Roche. Sebastian Ochsenreither reports honoraria for talks from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, MSD and for advise from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Immunocore, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer. Dirk Schadendorf reports consulting, DMSB/advisory role and honoraria from Immunocore; he reports consulting/advisory role; honoraria; travel, accommodations, expenses from Roche/Genentech and consulting/advisory role; honoraria; speakers bureau; travel, accommodations, expenses; research funding from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis; he reports consulting/advisory role; speakers bureau; honoraria from Incyte, Pierre Fabre and consulting/advisory role; honoraria from 4SC, Replimune; he reports consulting/advisory role; honoraria; travel, accommodations, expenses from Merck Serono and travel, accommodations, expenses from Merck; he reports honoraria from Array BioPharma, Philogen, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and consulting/advisory role for Nektar; he reports consulting/speaker role for Sunpharma and reports consulting for Daiichi Sanycho, Haystack, InFlarX, Innovent, Neracare, PamGene, Seagen; he reports adboards for Novigenix, OncoSec, SUN Pharma, Ultimovacs and DSMB/consulting for AstraZeneca and consulting/adboard for Immatics; he reports consulting and advisory roles; travel support; payments to institution for study conduct from Sanofi. Jens Siveke reports consulting, advisory role, and honoraria for talks from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Falk Foundation, Immunocore, MCI Deutschland GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Novartis, Roche, SERVIER; he reports institutional trial support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech and research funding from Abalos Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisbach Bio, Roche/Genentech; he reports travel, accommodations, expenses from SERVIER and leadership and stock and other ownership interests from Pharma15., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)