RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) presents significant treatment challenges due to its rarity and limited therapeutic options. The LANCE study was designed to explore the survival benefits of incorporating atezolizumab in chemotherapy for metastatic LCNEC. METHODS: In this non-randomized study, patients with metastatic LCNEC were prospectively enrolled and assigned to receive either standard chemotherapy plus atezolizumab followed by maintenance with atezolizumab or standard chemotherapy alone. The primary outcomes measured were 12- and 24-month survival rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients screened, 17 met the inclusion criteria and received either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 10) or chemotherapy alone (n = 7). After a median follow-up of 23.3 months, the 12-month survival rate was 57.1% (95% CI: 32.6-100%) and 14.3% (95% CI: 2.33-87.7%) for the atezolizumab and the chemotherapy-only groups, respectively. The survival benefit for the atezolizumab group was sustained at 24 months (45.7% vs. 14.3%). Overall survival was significantly higher for the atezolizumab group, and PFS was non-significantly associated with the addition of atezolizumab (log-rank p = 0.04 and 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that the addition of atezolizumab to standard platinum-based chemotherapy may provide a substantial survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic LCNEC.
RESUMEN
Breast cancer is the most common cancer type in women. The vast majority of breast cancer patients have hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumors. In advanced HR+ breast cancer, the combination of endocrine therapy with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors is considered the standard of care in the front-line setting. Nevertheless, resistance to hormonal therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors eventually occurs, leading to progression of the disease. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) comprise a promising therapeutic choice with significant efficacy in patients with HR+ breast cancer, which is resistant to endocrine treatment. ADCs typically consist of a cytotoxic payload attached by a linker to a monoclonal antibody that targets a specific tumor-associated antigen, offering the advantage of a more selective delivery of chemotherapy to cancer cells. In this review, we focus on the ADC mechanisms of action, their toxicity profile and therapeutic uses as well as on related biomarkers and future perspectives in advanced HR+ breast cancer.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to record and assess the efficacy and safety ofthromboprophylaxis with an intermediate dose of Tinzaparin in lung cancer patients with high thrombotic risk. METHODS: This was a non-interventional, single-arm, prospective cohort study of lung cancer patients who received thromboprophylaxis with Tinzaparin 10.000 Anti-Xa IU in 0.5 mL, OD, used in current clinical practice. Enrolled ambulatory patients signed informed consent. Anti-Xa levels were tested. RESULTS: In total, 140 patients were included in the study, of which 81.4% were males. The histology of the tumor was mainly adenocarcinoma. Lung cancer patients with high thrombotic risk based on tumor, patient, treatment, and laboratory-related factors were enrolled. Only one patient experienced a thrombotic event (0.7%), and 10 patients had bleeding events (7.1%), including only one major event. Anti-Xa levels measured at 10 days and 3 months did not differ significantly between patients who developed hemorrhagic events and those who did not (p = 0.26 and p = 0.32, respectively). CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis with an intermediate Tinzaparin dose in high thrombotic-risk lung cancer patients is a safe and effective choice for the prevention of VTE.
RESUMEN
Background: SARS-CoV-2 mortality rates are significantly higher in patients with lung cancer compared with the general population. However, little is known on their immunization status after vaccination. Methods: To evaluate the humoral response (seroconversion) of patients with lung cancer following vaccination against SARS-COV-2 (Group A), we obtained antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein both at baseline and at different time points after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (two to three weeks [T1], six weeks ± one week [T2], 12 weeks ± three weeks [T3], and 24 weeks ± three weeks [T4]). Antibodies were also acquired from a control cohort of non-lung cancer patients (Group B) as well as a third cohort containing healthy controls (Group C) at all time points and at T4, respectively, to make comparisons with Group A. Analysis of antibody response at different time points, association with clinicopathologic parameters, and comparisons with control groups were performed. Results: A total of 125 patients with lung cancer were included in the analysis (96 males [74.3%], median age of 68 years [46−91]. All study participants received two vaccine doses (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222). Analysis of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody titers showed minimal response at T1 (0.4 [0.4−48.6] IU/mL). Antibody response peaked at T2 (527.0 [0.4−2500] IU/mL) and declined over T3 (323.0 [0.4−2500] IU/mL) and T4 (141.0 [0.4−2500] IU/mL). Active smokers had lower antibody titers at T2 (p = 0.04), T3 (p = 0.04), and T4 (p < 0.0001) compared with former or never smokers. Peak antibody titers were not associated with any other clinicopathologic characteristic. No significant differences were observed compared with Group B. However, lung cancer patients exhibited significantly decreased antibody titers compared with Group C at T4 (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Lung cancer patients demonstrate sufficient antibody response six weeks after the first dose of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 when vaccinated with two-dose regimens. Rapidly declining antibody titers six weeks after the first dose underline the need for a third dose three months later, in patients with lung cancer, and especially active smokers.
RESUMEN
Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) is a clinical entity characterized by signs and symptoms arising from the obstruction or occlusion of the thin-walled superior vena cava (SVC) and can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the rise of benign cases of SVCS, as a thrombotic complication of intravascular devices, it is most commonly seen secondary to malignancy as a consequence of thrombosis, direct invasion of tumor cells inside the vessel, or external compression. SVCS can be the initial presentation of a previously undiagnosed tumor in up to 60% of cases. Lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are responsible for up to 85%-90% of malignancy-related SVCS, while metastatic cancers account for approximately 10%. Herein, we review the pathophysiology, etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of malignancy-related SVCS.
