Search

Abstract Background The KEYNOTE-048 trial showed that pembrolizumab-based first-line treatment for R/M HNSCC led to improved OS in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 population when compared to the EXTREME regimen. However, the R/M HNSCC real-world population is generally frailer, often presenting with multiple comorbidities, worse performance status and older age than the population included in phase III clinical trials. Methods This is a retrospective, single-centre analysis of patients with R/M HNSCC treated with pembrolizumab-based first-line treatment. Results From February 2021 to March 2023, 92 patients were treated with pembrolizumab-based first-line treatment. Patients treated with pembrolizumab-based chemoimmunotherapy had better ECOG PS and younger age than those treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy. Median PFS and OS were 4 months and 8 months, respectively. PFS was similar among patients treated with pembrolizumab-based chemoimmunotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy, while patients treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy had worse OS (log-rank p =.001, HR 2.7). PFS and OS were improved in patients with PD-L1 CPS > = 20 (PFS: log-rank p =.005, HR 0.50; OS: log-rank p =.04, HR 0.57). Patients with higher ECOG PS scores had worse PFS and OS (PFS, log-rank p =.004; OS, log-rank p = 6e-04). In multivariable analysis, ECOG PS2 was associated with worse PFS and OS. Conclusions PFS in our real-world cohort was similar to the KEYNOTE-048 reference while OS was numerically inferior. A deeper understanding of clinical variables that might affect survival outcomes of patients with R/M HNSCC beyond ECOG PS and PD-L1 CPS is urgently needed.

The new landscape of treatments for metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (mRCC) is constantly expanding, but it is associated with the emergence of novel toxicities, adding to up to those observed in the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) era. Indeed, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination has been associated with the development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) involving multiple-organ systems which, even if rarely, had led to fatal outcomes. Moreover, due to the relatively recent addition of ICIs to the previously available treatments, the potential additive adverse effects of these combinations are still unknown. A prompt recognition and management of these toxicities currently represents a fundamental issue in oncology, since it correlates with the outcome of cancer patients. Even if clinical guidelines provide indications for the management of irAEs, no specific protocol to evaluate the individual risk of developing an adverse event during therapy is currently available. A multidisciplinary approach addressing appropriate interventions aimed at reducing the risk of any insidious, severe, and/or dose-limiting toxicity might represent the most efficacious strategy to timely prevent and manage severe irAEs, allowing indirectly to improve both patients’ cancer-specific survival and quality of life. In this review, we reported a five-case series of toxicity events that occurred at our center during treatment for mRCC followed by the remarks of physicians from different specialties, pinpointing the relevant role of an integrated and extended multidisciplinary team in a modern model of mRCC patient management.