Cancers of Unknown Primary Origin: Real-World Clinical Outcomes and Genomic Analysis at the European Institute of Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP) poses a significant challenge due to poor clinical outcomes and limited treatment options. As such, further definition of clinicopathological factors and genomic profile to better adapt treatment strategies is required. METHODS: Medical records were interrogated to retrospectively include CUP with available clinical and genomics data at the European Institute of Oncology. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) included targeted panels. Statistical analyses were conducted with R Software 4.2.2. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 39.46 months (interquartile range [IQR] 35.98-47.41 months), median PFS (mPFS) to first-line regimen was 3.98 months (95% CI 3.22-5.98), with a clinical benefit rate of 26% (95% CI 14%-49%), and disease control rate (DCR) limited to 48.28%. Most patients (26 of 31, 83.87%) received platinum-doublet chemotherapy, with no statistically significant difference between first-line treatment regimens. Median OS (mOS) was 18.8 months (95% CI 12.3-39.9), with a 12-month OS rate of 66% (95% CI 50%-85%). All patients received comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). For 11 patients, NGS was unsuccessful due to low sample quantity and/or quality. For the remaining, TP53 (n = 16, 48%) and KRAS (n = 10, 30%) represented the most altered (alt) genes. No microsatellite instability was observed (0 of 28), while 6 of 28 (21.43%) tumors carried high TMB (≥10 mutation per megabase). Eight of 33 tumors (24.2%) displayed at least one actionable alteration with potential clinical benefit according to ESCAT. Only 2 of them received targeted therapy matched to genomic alterations, with a combined mPFS of 2.63 months (95% CI 1.84-not evaluable) as third-line regimens. Six patients received anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapy, showing a meaningful mPFS of 13 months (95% CI 2.04-not evaluable). CONCLUSION: CUP exhibits poor prognosis with limited benefits from standard treatment regimens. A significant proportion of CUPs carry actionable alterations, underscoring the importance of genomic profiling to gather additional treatment opportunities. In addition, immunotherapy might represent a valuable treatment option for a subset of CUP. Finally, accurate definition of sequencing methods and platforms is crucial to overcome NGS failures.

The Evolving Scenario of ES-SCLC Management: From Biology to New Cancer Therapeutics.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma accounting for 15% of lung cancers with dismal survival outcomes. Minimal changes in therapy and prognosis have occurred in SCLC for the past four decades. Recent progress in the treatment of extensive-stage disease (ES-SCLC) has been marked by incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to modest improvements. Moreover, few second-line-and-beyond treatment options are currently available. The main limitation for the molecular study of SCLC has been the scarcity of samples, because only very early diseases are treated with surgery and biopsies are not performed when the disease progresses. Despite all these difficulties, in recent years we have come to understand that SCLC is not a homogeneous disease. At the molecular level, in addition to the universal loss of retinoblastoma (RB) and TP53 genes, a recent large molecular study has identified other mutations that could serve as targets for therapy development or patient selection. In recent years, there has also been the identification of new genetic subtypes which have shown us how intertumor heterogeneity exists. Moreover, SCLC can also develop intratumoral heterogeneity linked mainly to the concept of cellular plasticity, mostly due to the development of resistance to therapies. The aim of this review is to quickly present the current standard of care of ES-SCLC, to focus on the molecular landscapes and subtypes of SCLC, subsequently present the most promising therapeutic strategies under investigation, and finally recap the future directions of ongoing clinical trials for this aggressive disease which still remains a challenge.

Alectinib vs. Lorlatinib in the Front-Line Setting for ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Deep Dive into the Main Differences across ALEX and CROWN Phase 3 Trials.

Various next-generation ALK TKIs are available as first-line options for ALK-positive NSCLC, with alectinib and lorlatinib being commonly preferred. However, no direct comparison between them has been conducted, making it impossible to pick a winner. We performed an analytic, 'non-comparative' assessment of the two phase 3 pivotal clinical trials showing superiority of alectinib (ALEX) and lorlatinib (CROWN) in comparison to crizotinib. Overall, the two studies were very similar in the study design and patient characteristics, with the exception of the selection and evaluation of brain metastases. PFS hazard ratios numerically favored lorlatinib, both according to the investigator and to BICR. Notably, the 3-year PFS rate was numerically higher with lorlatinib (64%) than with alectinib (46.4%). Despite similar response rates and overall intracranial response, the rate of complete intracranial response was higher with lorlatinib, with a cumulative incidence risk of CNS disease progression at 12 months of 9.4% with alectinib and 2.8% with lorlatinib. The peculiar toxicities of lorlatinib were related to lipidic profile alterations, peripheral oedema and cognitive effects, with no impact on cardiovascular risk nor impairment in quality of life versus crizotinib. Furthermore, the rate of permanent treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was numerically higher with alectinib (26%) than with lorlatinib (7%). In conclusion, despite the immature OS data for both drugs, the efficacy of lorlatinib appears higher than alectinib while maintaining a manageable toxicity profile.