Cross-trial comparisons for the adjuvant treatment of MSI colorectal cancer: dare to dream the future scenarios.

The remarkable outcomes achieved with neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors for patients diagnosed with MSI colorectal cancer hold the potential to revolutionize the treatment landscape in this context. Specifically, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in colon cancer and dostarlimab in rectal cancer has led to an unprecedented rate of complete pathological and clinical responses. Notably, these responses have been further substantiated by the absence of relapses, with a 0% relapse rate observed during the first year of follow-up. The significance of these achievements becomes even more apparent when compared to the relatively high relapse rates, ranging from 11% to 28%, observed in MSI colorectal cancer cases treated neoadjuvantly with chemo(radio)therapy. However, it is crucial to exercise caution when interpreting such exceptional responses in oncology, especially within a short follow-up period. The future implications of these findings will depend on how the data mature over time. In this manuscript, we attempt to explore the potential scenarios that may unfold in the near future.

Streamlining the diagnostic pathway for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients: a 10-year experience in a single Italian Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Universal screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients for Lynch syndrome (LS) through MisMatch Repair (MMR) testing is recommended. BRAF V600E mutation and/or MLH1 promoter methylation (Reflex Testing, RefT)generally rule out LS in MLH1-deficient (dMLH1) patients. We estimated the impact of RefTon genetic counseling (GC) and on the diagnostic yield of genetic testing (GT). METHODS: Overall, 3199 CRC patients were referred to our center between 2011 and 2021. Patients referred until January 2019 (n=2536) underwent universal MMR testing and were termed 'Cohort A'; among patients after February 2019 (n=663), 'Cohort B', RefT was also performed in dMLH1 patients. RESULTS: Overall, 401/3199 patients (12.5%) were MMR-deficient (dMMR); 312 (77.8%) in cohort A and 89 (22.2%) inB; 346/401 were dMLH1 (86.3%), 262/312 (83.9%) in cohort A and 84/89 (94.3%) in B. In Cohort A, 91/312 (29.1%) dMMR patients were referred to GC, 69/91 (75.8%) were in the dMLH1 group; 57/69 (82.6%) dMLH1 patients underwent GT and 1/57 (1.7%) had LS. In Cohort B, 3/84 dMLH1 patients did not undergo BRAF testing. Three BRAF wt and not hypermethylated of the remaining 81 dMLH1 patients were referred to GC and GT, and one had LS. This diagnostic pathway reduced GC referrals by 96% (78/81) in Cohort B and increased the diagnostic yield of GT by about 20 times. CONCLUSION: Our findings support RefT in dMLH1 CRC patients within the LS diagnostic pathway, as it reduces the number of GC sessions needed and increases the diagnostic yield of GT.

Durvalumab Plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Biliary Tract Cancer: a Real-World Retrospective, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial reported a survival benefit with the anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated for the first time the impact on survival of adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine compared with cisplatin/gemcitabine in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analyzed population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine or with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. The impact of adding durvalumab to chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was investigated with univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 563 patients were included in the analysis: 213 received cisplatin/gemcitabine alone, 350 received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab. At the univariate analysis, the addition of durvalumab was found to have an impact on survival, with a median OS of 14.8 months versus 11.2 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.80, p = 0.0002] in patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab compared to those who received cisplatin/gemcitabine alone. At the univariate analysis for PFS, the addition of durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated a survival impact, with a median PFS of 8.3 months and 6.0 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47-0.70, p < 0.0001) in patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab and cisplatin/gemcitabine alone, respectively. The multivariate analysis confirmed that adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS, with patients > 70 years old and those affected by locally advanced disease experiencing the highest survival benefit. Finally, an exploratory analysis of prognostic factors was performed in the cohort of patients who received durvalumab: neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and disease stage were to be independent prognostic factors in terms of OS. The interaction test highlighted NLR ≤ 3, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) = 0, and locally advanced disease as positive predictive factors for OS on cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab. CONCLUSION: In line with the results of the TOPAZ-1 trial, adding durvalumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine has been confirmed to confer a survival benefit in terms of OS and PFS in a real-world setting of patients with advanced BTC.