Refining patient selection for next-generation immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials with a novel and externally validated prognostic nomogram.

Introduction: Identifying which patient may benefit from immunotherapeutic early-phase clinical trials is an unmet need in drug development. Among several proposed prognostic scores, none has been validated in patients receiving immunomodulating agents (IMAs)-based combinations. Patients and methods: We retrospectively collected data of 208 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials investigating IMAs at our Institution, correlating clinical and blood-based variables with overall survival (OS). A retrospective cohort of 50 patients treated with IMAs at Imperial College (Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK) was used for validation. Results: A total of 173 subjects were selected for analyses. Most frequent cancers included non-small cell lung cancer (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (21.5%) and glioblastoma (13%). Multivariate analysis (MVA) revealed 3 factors to be independently associated with OS: line of treatment (second and third vs subsequent, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.93, p 0.02), serum albumin as continuous variable (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91, p 0.02) and number of metastatic sites (<3 vs ≥3, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.98, p 0.04). After splitting albumin value at the median (3.84 g/dL), a score system was capable of stratifying patients in 3 groups with significantly different OS (p<0.0001). Relationship with OS reproduced in the external cohort (p=0.008). Then, from these factors we built a nomogram. Conclusions: Prior treatment, serum albumin and number of metastatic sites are readily available prognostic traits in patients with advanced malignancies participating into immunotherapy early-phase trials. Combination of these factors can optimize patient selection at study enrollment, maximizing therapeutic intent.

T Cell Features in Glioblastoma May Guide Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome Microenvironment Immunosuppression.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive and lethal primary brain tumor, bearing a survival estimate below 10% at five years, despite standard chemoradiation treatment. At recurrence, systemic treatment options are limited and the standard of care is not well defined, with inclusion in clinical trials being highly encouraged. So far, the use of immunotherapeutic strategies in GBM has not proved to significantly improve patients' prognosis in the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM, nor in the recurrent setting. Probably this has to do with the unique immune environment of the central nervous system, which harbors several immunosuppressive/pro-tumorigenic factors, both soluble (e.g., TGF-ß, IL-10, STAT3, prostaglandin E2, and VEGF) and cellular (e.g., Tregs, M2 phenotype TAMs, and MDSC). Here we review the immune composition of the GBMs microenvironment, specifically focusing on the phenotype and function of the T cell compartment. Moreover, we give hints on the therapeutic strategies, such as immune checkpoint blockade, vaccinations, and adoptive cell therapy, that, interacting with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, might both target in different ways the tumor microenvironment and potentiate the activity of standard therapies. The path to be followed in advancing clinical research on immunotherapy for GBM treatment relies on a twofold strategy: testing combinatorial treatments, aiming to restore active immune anti-tumor responses, tackling immunosuppression, and additionally, designing more phase 0 and window opportunity trials with solid translational analyses to gain deeper insight into the on-treatment shaping of the GBM microenvironment.

Brain metastases and next-generation anticancer therapies: a survival guide for clinicians.

Historically, patients with brain metastases (BMs) have been characterized by few systemic treatment options and poor prognosis. The recent introduction of next-generation anticancer therapies such as molecular targeted agents and immunotherapy have revolutionized the clinical decision-making process of this sub-population, posing new challenges to physicians. In this review, current evidence for the use of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in patients with BMs are discussed, with a focus on lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma and renal cell carcinoma, providing suggestions and potential workflows for daily clinical practice. Several other on-going and future challenges, such as clinical trials design, ways to improve CNS penetration of novel drugs and unique molecular characteristics of BMs, are also discussed. The aim is producing an updated and easy-to-read guide for physicians, to improve decision-making in clinical practice.

Improved outcomes in women with BRAF-mutant melanoma treated with BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy across randomized clinical trials. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Available evidence suggests that in patients with advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma treated with the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors, gender could be associated with survival outcome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors, to assess the interaction between treatment effect and patients' gender. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus, for phase II and III RCTs up to January 30, 2022. We included all RCTs that enrolled patients with BRAF V600-mutant advanced cutaneous melanoma and assessed combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors versus BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. Our aim was to assess differences if any in treatment efficacy between men and women, measured in terms of the differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) log-hazard ratios (log-HRs). We calculated the pooled PFS- and OS-HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in men and women using a random-effects model and assessed the heterogeneity between the estimates using an interaction test. Five RCTs that enrolled a total of 2,113 patients were included in the analysis. In women, the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors halved the risk of progression or death as compared with BRAF inhibitor monotherapy with a pooled PFS-HR of 0.50 (95%CI 0.41-0.61). In men, the benefit obtained with BRAF and MEK inhibitors was smaller with a pooled PFS-HR of 0.63 (95%CI 0.54-0.74), P-heterogeneity = .05. A similar trend was observed for OS where the pooled OS-HR was 0.62 (95%CI 0.48-0.80) in women and only 0.78, (95%CI 0.67-0.92) in men, P-heterogeneity = 0.11. These results support meaningful gender-based heterogeneity of response to combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors targeted therapy in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma, that should be considered in future research to improve treatment effectiveness.