Search

Marcello Tucci,1,* Clizia Zichi,1,* Consuelo Buttigliero,1 Francesca Vignani,2 Giorgio V Scagliotti,1 Massimo Di Maio2 1Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, 10043 Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 2Division of Medical Oncology, Ordine Mauriziano Hospital, Torino, Italy *These authors contributed equally to this work Abstract: The new-generation hormonal agent enzalutamide has been approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), in both post- and predocetaxel setting, due to the significant improvement in overall survival. More recently, enzalutamide also showed impressive results in the treatment of men with nonmetastatic CRPC. Unfortunately, not all patients with CRPC are responsive to enzalutamide, and even in responders, benefits are limited by the development of drug resistance. Adaptive resistance of metastatic prostate cancer to enzalutamide treatment can be due to the activation of both androgen receptor (AR)-dependent pathways (expression of constitutively active AR splice variants, AR point mutations, gene amplification and overexpression) and mechanisms independent of AR signaling pathway (altered steroidogenesis, upregulation of the glucocorticoid receptor, epithelial–mesenchymal transition, neuroendocrine transformation, autophagy and activation of the immune system). In this review, we focus on resistance mechanisms to enzalutamide, exploring how we could overcome them through novel therapeutic options. Keywords: prostate cancer, enzalutamide, hormonal treatment, mechanisms of resistance, castration-resistant prostate cancer, androgen receptor

Background: The NAPOLI-I trial showed better outcome of nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) compared to 5-FU/LV in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cancer (advPDAC) progressed to gemcitabine-based therapy. This study aims to explore the real-world efficacy and safety of 5-FU/LV-nal-IRI., Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter analysis including advPDAC patients receiving 5-FU/LV-nal-IRI after failure of gemcitabine-based therapy. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier method, univariate and multivariate analyses by Cox regression., Results: A total of 296 patients (median age 64.4 years, ECOG PS ≥1 in 56% of cases) were treated at 11 Italian institutions between 2016 and 2018. 34% of them underwent primary tumor resection, and 79% received gemcitabine-nabpaclitaxel as first line. 5-FU/LV-nal-IRI was administered as second-line in 73% of cases. Objective response and disease control rate were 12% and 41%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated with dose reductions in 50% of patients but no one permanent discontinuation; the commonest grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (14%) and diarrhea (12%). Median PFS and OS from 5-FU/LV-nal-IRI initiation was 3.2 and 7.1 months, respectively., Conclusions: These real-world data confirm the 5-FU/LV-nal-IRI efficacy and safety in advPDAC patients progressed to gemcitabine-based therapy, with outcomes comparable to NAPOLI-1, even in a less-selected population and with more modern therapeutic algorithm., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has triggered the disruption of health care on a global scale. With Italy tangled up in the pandemic response, oncology care has been largely diverted and cancer screenings suspended. Our multicenter Italian study aimed to evaluate whether COVID-19 has impacted access to diagnosis, staging, and treatment for patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC), compared with pre-pandemic time., Methods: All consecutive new CRC patients referred to 8 Italian oncology institutions between March and December 2020 were included. Access rate and temporal intervals between date of symptoms onset, radiological and cytohistological diagnosis, treatment start and first radiological evaluation were analyzed and compared with the same months of 2019., Results: A reduction (29%) in newly diagnosed CRC cases was seen when compared with 2019 (360 vs 506). New CRC patients in 2020 were less likely to be diagnosed with early stage (stages I-II-III) CRC (63% vs 78%, P < .01). Gender and sidedness were similar regardless of the year. The percentage of tumors with any mutation among BRAF, NRAS, and KRAS genes were significantly different between the 2 years (61% in 2020 vs 50% in 2019, P = .04). Timing of access to cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment for patients with CRC has not been negatively affected by the pandemic. Significantly shorter temporal intervals were observed between symptom onset and first oncological appointment (69 vs 79 days, P = .01) and between histological diagnosis and first oncological appointment (34 vs 42 days, P < .01) during 2020 compared with 2019. Fewer CRC cases were discussed in multidisciplinary meetings during 2020 (38% vs 50%, P = .01)., Conclusions: Our data highlight a significant drop in CRC diagnosis after COVID-19, especially for early stage disease. The study also reveals a remarkable setback in the multidisciplinary management of patients with CRC. Despite this, Italian oncologists were able to ensure diagnostic-therapeutic pathways proper operation after March 2020., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Advanced stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM) patients have poor prognosis. Several trials investigated the role of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and its ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in pre-treated asMM., Methods: A systematic review of the literature of clinical trials testing single-agent anti PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs in pre-treated asMM was performed. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data were extracted. The predictive role of PD-L1 was assessed., Results: We selected 13 studies including 888 patients. ORR and DCR were 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.9-22.8%) and 55.4% (95% CI: 48.1-62.5%), respectively. Median PFS and OS ranged from 2.1 to 5.9 and from 6.7 to 20.9 months, respectively. ORR according to PD-L1 was 27.0% (95% CI: 18.7-36.2%)., Conclusions: Anti-PD-(L)1 ICIs might be considered a treatment option for chemotherapy-resistant asMM, even if reliable predictive factors are still lacking., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The retrospective studies that have so far described the outcomes of the sequential use of life-prolonging agents (LPAs) did not include metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who received radium-223 ( 223 Ra) as part of their treatment. Consequently, it is not known whether including 223 Ra in the therapeutic sequence has an impact on cumulative survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate this impact by comparing the cumulative overall survival (OS) in two series of mCRPC patients sequentially treated with two or three LPAs after first-line docetaxel (DOC), including 223 Ra and not. Materials and Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of mCRPC patients with bone involvement alone who received two or three LPAs (including 223 Ra) after first-line DOC. The control group was a contemporary series of mCRPC patients with bone involvement alone treated with sequences of two or three LPAs other than 223 Ra after first-line DOC. Results: Median cumulative OS was 40.6 months in the 223 Ra group of 78 patients and 36.2 months in the non- 223 Ra group of 186 patients ( p  = 0.08). OS outcomes were significantly influenced by the number of treatment lines, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) and prostate-specific antigen levels. Conclusions: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study designed to evaluate the impact of introducing 223 Ra in the treatment sequences for mCRPC patients, and the results show that its use does not negatively affect cumulative OS.

Background and Aim: Trial designs using multiple primary endpoints (MPEs) are increasing in phase III cancer trials. Our objectives were to describe the incidence of MPEs in recently published phase III trials testing systemic treatments in patients with advanced cancer; the main characteristics of trials adopting MPEs; the presence of mature results for all endpoints in the primary publication; consistency between results of each endpoint and authors' conclusions., Methods: Articles of randomised phase III trials conducted in patients with advanced cancer, published between 2017 and 2020, were retrieved from PubMed. The main outcome was the proportion of trials with MPEs. In principle, according to regulatory agencies, we considered two distinct cases: (i) MPEs correspond to 'multiple chances' for the success of experimental treatment, needing adjustment for multiplicity, and (ii) a positive result depends on the success in all MPEs ('co-primary' endpoints)., Results: Out of 235 eligible trials, 27 trials (12%) adopted MPE, mostly overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The proportion of trials with MPEs increased over time, from 6% in 2017 to 20% in 2020 (p = 0.025). MPEs were adopted in 16% of for-profit trials versus 4% of non-profit trials (p = 0.006). The proportion of trials adopting MPEs was particularly high with immunotherapy (53%, p < 0.00001). Out of 27 trials with MPEs, 10 (37%) adopted an explicit definition of 'co-primary' endpoints, but only 1/10 declared the positivity of both endpoints critical for interpretation. Most trials (23, 85%) planned correction for multiplicity. Of 21 publications with positive conclusions, only 12 had a statistically significant positive result in both primary endpoints. In four cases (15%), positive conclusions were based on PFS results alone., Conclusions: Adoption of MPEs in randomised trials in oncology is quite common. Only a minority of trials respect recommendations by regulatory agencies about the adoption of MPEs, definition of 'co-primary' endpoints and correction for multiplicity., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: Maria Lucia Reale had a role as a consultant for Eli-Lilly, outside the submitted work. Francesco Perrone reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, personal fees from Sandoz, grants and personal fees from Incyte, personal fees from Celgene, grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from Janssen Cilag, grants from Roche, grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work.Massimo Di Maio received honoraria and had roles as consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Eisai, Janssen, Astellas; received institutional research grant by Tesaro – GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Radium 223 (RA223) is currently administered as part of a therapeutic sequence with the other life-prolonging agents (LPAs) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients & methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of patients who had received at least three LPAs including RA223. Results: Median overall survival (OS) from the start of first-line treatment was 39.8 months, with the patients who completed all six planned courses of RA223 having a longer OS than those who did not (53.2 vs 29.5 months; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our study confirms the activity of RA223 regardless of the treatment line in which it is administered and suggests that patient selection plays a central role in maximizing this activity.

Background: Neuroendocrine differentiation has been extensively associated with worse prognosis and to mechanisms of therapy resistance in several epithelial cancers. A high prevalence of neuroendocrine differentiation was recently described in V600EBRAF- mutated (BRAFmt) metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) but no data are available about its prognostic impact in this setting., Methods: We assessed synaptophysin immunohistochemical expression in a multi-institutional series of 159 BRAFmt mCRCs with matched clinical and pathological information. Tumours were dichotomized as synaptophysin high and low. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests., Results: Thirty-five tumours (22.0%) showed any level of positivity for synaptophysin, and 18 (11.3%) were characterized by positivity in at least 20% of tumour cells. Four cases resulted 100% synaptophysin positive. The histotype of synaptophysin-positive tumours (i.e. ≥20%) was not otherwise specified in 11 cases (61.1%) and mucinous adenocarcinoma in 4 cases (22.2%). Four cases were DNA mismatch repair deficient (22.2%) and 7 (38.9%) were characterized by a high number of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes. At multivariate analysis, high synaptophysin expression was a negative independent prognostic factor for both PFS (HR = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-3.33, p = 0.006) and OS (HR = 2.27, 95% CI 1.35-3.85, p = 0.001)., Conclusions: Among BRAFmt mCRCs, synaptophysin-positive tumours are characterized by worse PFS and OS. Further studies should investigate the molecular mechanisms involved in the acquisition of the neuroendocrine phenotype to identify novel-targeted treatment strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article. Matteo Fassan received research grant from Astellas Pharma and QED Therapeutics and is a consultant/advisory board member for Astellas Pharma, Diaceutics, Tesaro and GSK. Fotios Loupakis received lecture fees from Amgen and F. Hoffmann-La Roche and advisory fees from Bayer and Genentech. Sara Lonardi received advisory board fees from Amgen, Bayer, Eli Lilly, and Merck Serono, received research grant from Amgen and Merck Serono and is part of the speakers' bureau of Lilly and BMS. Angelo Paolo Dei Tos declares personal fees for advisory boards/speaker's bureau from PharaMar, Lilly, Roche, Bayer and Pfizer. Filippo Pietrantonio declared honoraria/speaker's bureau from Roche, Amgen, Merck-Serono, Lilly, Sanofi, Bayer and Servier and research grant from BMS. Chiara Cremolini is a consultant/advisory board member for Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono and Servier. Massimo Di Maio received honoraria, had roles as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myears Squibb, MSD, Takeda and Janssen and received a research grant from Tesaro. Vittorina Zagonel received honoraria and had roles as a consultant or advisor for Bristol-Myears Squibb, Bayer, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Astellas and Servier and had roles as a consultant or advisor for Celgene and Merck. Lorenza Rimassa reports personal fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roches Sanofi, AbbViem Gilead and reearch grants from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, FibroGen, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche. Giuseppe Aprile reports receiving personal fees and has been a consultant for Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche and Servier., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Patients with unresectable biliary tract carcinomas (BTCs) have a poor prognosis with a median overall survival of fewer than 12 months following systemic chemotherapy. In recent years, the identification of distinct molecular alterations with corresponding targeted therapies is modifying this therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this review is to present an overview of targeted therapy for BTCs, describing published available data and potential future challenges in ongoing trials. From clinicaltrials.gov online database all ongoing trials for BTCs (any stage) was examinated in July 2021, and data regarding study design, disease characteristics and type of treatments were registered. Oncogenic-driven therapy (targeted therapy) was investigated in 67 trials. According to research, 15 ongoing trials (22.4%) are investigating fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor (FGFR)-inhibitors in BTCs. Three (18.7%) are open-label randomized multicenter phase 3 trials, 8 (50%) are single-arm phase two trials, and 4 (25%) are phase one studies. Twelve (17.9%) clinical trials dealt with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1/2 targeting therapy either in combination with cisplatin (Cis) and gemcitabine (Gem) as first-line treatment for BTCs or in monotherapy in patients with IDH1 mutant advanced malignancies, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Nine (13.4%) clinical trials tested human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 2 targeting therapy. Four (44.4%) studies are phase I trials, two (22.2%) are phase I/II trials, and three (33.3%) phase II trials. Rare molecular alterations in BTCs, such as anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros oncogene1 receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1), and v-RAF murine sarcoma viral oncogene homologue B1 (BRAF), are also under investigation in a few trials. Forty-four clinical trials (17.2%) are investigating not oncogenic-driven multitarget therapy like multireceptor tyrosin kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenetic agents. In conclusion, this review shows that BTCs management is experiencing important innovations, especially in biomarker-based patient selection and in the new emerging therapeutic approach. Many ongoing trials could answer questions regarding the role of molecular inhibitors leading to new therapeutic frontiers for molecular subcategories of BTCs., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: Massimo Di Maio received honoraria and had roles as consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Eisai, Janssen, Astellas; received institutional research grant by Tesaro e GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Purpose: To evaluate the fracture risk and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who received sequentially abiraterone acetate (AA) and radium 223 [223Ra]RaCl 2 in the daily clinical practice., Materials: We retrospectively reviewed the records of mCRPC patients who received [223Ra]RaCl 2 immediately after progressing during an AA treatment line in everyday clinical practice., Results: We reviewed data of a consecutive series of 94 mCRPC patients. Most of the patients (85.1%) received [223Ra]RaCl 2 as second- or third-line treatment. [223Ra]RaCl 2 treatment was well-tolerated; there were only four cases of grade 3 anaemia, two cases of grade 3 leukopenia and one case of grade 3 neutropenia. The overall fracture rate is 2.1%; one fracture was recorded during the course of [223Ra]RaCl 2 treatment, and one was recorded 1 month after its end. The fractures both occurred at metastatic sites. Median OS from [223Ra]RaCl 2 start was more than 14 months regardless of the treatment line when [223Ra]RaCl 2 was administered., Conclusion: The findings of this study show that the treatment with [223Ra]RaCl 2 immediately after AA was active and safe with a very low risk of a fracture. Thus, the present observational report makes a valuable contribution to the current debate concerning the risks and benefits of including [223Ra]RaCl 2 in the therapeutic algorithm.