How to Improve the Quality of Life of Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Hormone Therapy?

Prostate cancer (PC) is a hormone-sensitive tumor. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the cornerstone of systemic therapy for patients with intermediate or high-risk localized, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer. Although generally well tolerated, ADT can lead to short- and long-term adverse events that can worsen the quality of life of patients with PC. In the last decade, the introduction of novel generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) has resulted in an improvement in the prognosis of patients with metastatic PC when used in combination with ADT. The use of ARPI in increasingly early stages of the disease determines a longer exposure of patients to these treatments. Although ARPIs are normally well-tolerated drugs, they generally cause an increase in toxicity compared to ADT alone, being able to worsen some adverse events already induced by ADT or leading to the development of specific side effects. Although there are no specific treatments for all the adverse events induced by hormonal therapies, it is essential to know the possible toxicities induced by the different treatments and to start procedures to prevent and/or recognize and consequently treat them early in order to not compromise the quality of life of the patients with PC. The aim of this review is to describe the adverse events induced by hormonal therapies. We will first describe the side effects induced by both ADT and ARPI and then the specific adverse events of the different ARPIs. Furthermore, we will try to highlight the possible therapeutic options to prevent or mitigate the toxicity induced by hormone therapies in order to improve the quality of life of the patients with PC.

Strengths and pitfalls of brigatinib in non-small cell lung cancer patients' management.

The treatment landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients has dramatically changed over the past 10 years, particularly thanks to the advent and development of several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting oncogenic drivers. Among them, patients bearing anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations, which are causative of 3-5% of all advanced NSCLC, have seen dramatically improved their clinical outcomes moving life expectancy at 5 years from less than 5% to 50%. In fact, multiple ALK inhibitors (ALKi) entered in the therapeutic algorithm of ALK+ patients, multiplying their treatment opportunities. Remarkably, in the near future we could take advantage of up to different 6 molecules for the first-line approach (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, plus ensartinib and lorlatinib). Among available ALKi, brigatinib, a second-generation (2G) inhibitor, showed notable activity in this setting, also against central nervous system (CNS) disease, and a good safety profile, supporting its approval as upfront treatment based on the ALTA-1L trial results. With a peculiar profile of enzymatic targets, brigatinib represents a valuable opportunity in the ALK targeting journey, albeit having to balance its safety profile. The abundance of therapeutic options for these patients poses nontrivial questions; in absence of direct comparisons of efficacy is not easy to define the best approach and, more compelling, the correct administration sequence in order to give the best therapeutic chances to ALK+ lung cancer patients. In such wide variety of options, we reviewed the preclinical and clinical efficacy data of brigatinib, its pharmacological and safety profile, like also actual and potential future applications in the ALK+ NSCLC scenario. Through a spurious exercise of an indirect comparison with other available 2G ALKi, we tent to summarize the required knowledge to properly choose the best drug at the right time. Furthermore, we reviewed available data on molecular resistance mechanisms and putative therapeutic applications in other contexts, such as ROS1+ NSCLC patients or EGFR+ ones progressing to osimertinib.

Management of Oligoprogression in Patients with Metastatic NSCLC Harboring ALK Rearrangements.

Personalized treatment based on driver molecular alterations, such as ALK rearrangement, has revolutionized the therapeutic management of advanced oncogene-addicted NSCLC patients. Multiple effective ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with the amelioration of the activity at central nervous system level, are now available, leading to substantial prognosis improvement. The exposure to TKIs triggers resistance mechanisms and the sequential administration of other TKIs and chemotherapy is, for the most part, not targeted. In this context, extending the benefit deriving from precision medicine is paramount, above all, when disease progression occurs in a limited number of sites. Retrospective data indicate that, in oligoprogressive disease, targeted therapy beyond progression combined with definitive local treatment of the progressing site(s) is an effective alternative. In these cases, a multidisciplinary approach becomes essential for an integrated treatment strategy, depending on the site of disease progression, in order to improve not only survival, but also quality of life. In this review we provide an updated and comprehensive overview of the main treatment strategies in cases of ALK rearranged oligoprogression, including systemic treatment as well as local therapy, and report a real-world clinical story, with the final aim of identifying the most promising management for this subset of patients.

Comparing T Cell Subsets in Broncho-Alveolar Lavage (BAL) and Peripheral Blood in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer (LC) tissue for immunological characterization is often scarce. We explored and compared T cell characteristics between broncho-alveolar lavage from tumor affected (t-BAL) and contralateral lung (cl-BAL), with matched peripheral blood (PB). METHODS: BAL and PB were collected during bronchoscopy for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes in patients with monolateral primary lesion. RESULTS: Of 33 patients undergoing BAL and PB sampling, 21 had histologically-confirmed LC. Most cases were locally-advanced or metastatic non-small cell LC. T cell characteristics were not significantly different in t-BAL vs. cl-BAL. Compared to PB, CD8 T cells in BAL presented features of immune activation and exhaustion (high PD-1, low IFN-g production). Accordingly, regulatory CD4 T cells were also higher in BAL vs. PB. When dichotomizing T cell density in t-BAL in high and low, we found that PD-L1 expression in LC was associated with T cell density in t-BAL. T-BAL with high T cell density had higher %IFN-g+CD8 T cells and lower %T-regs. CONCLUSION: In BAL from advanced LC patients, T cells present features of exhaustion. T cells in t-BAL could be the best surrogate of tumor-infiltrating T cell, and future studies should evaluate T cell phenotype and density as potential biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy outcome.

Exploring the immune-checkpoint inhibitors' efficacy/tolerability in special non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) populations: focus on steroids and autoimmune disease.

The advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) axis, both as monotherapy and in combination strategies, produced a paradigm change of the treatment algorithm for metastatic, non-oncogene addicted, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Although the great efficacy and the optimal tolerability emerging from clinical studies has been confirmed for the majority of patients treated in the real-word scenario, however the potential activity and safety profile of these agents in uncommon NSCLC populations remains still controversial. Particularly, patients with previously diagnosed autoimmune disease or concomitant steroids treatment at the time of immunotherapy initiation represent two special subgroups of patients not unusual in the real-word practice, to whom the clinical implication of immune-checkpoint inhibitors administration is largely unknown. In this review we provided an updated literature overview, summarizing available evidence and reporting practical suggestions, which may guide physicians in their clinical management of these NSCLC sub-populations.

Descriptive Comparative Analysis of Patients With Cancer Referring to the Emergency Department of an Italian University Hospital Across the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Waves.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 cancer patients (C19-CP) represent a population at high risk for mortality, whose clinical characteristics are still unknown in the second SARS-CoV-2 wave. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare epidemiology and clinical presentation of C19-CP referring to the emergency department (ED) of our institution (San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy), in a 3-week observation period of the first and second COVID-19 waves, starting from the introduction of the corresponding national lockdowns. METHODS: We retrieved ED admissions from March 9 to 29, 2020, for the first wave, and from October 24 to November 13, 2020, for the second wave. We collected clinical characteristics of consecutive patients with molecularly confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also considered untested or SARS-CoV-2-negative cancer patients referring to the ED in the reference time frames. RESULTS: C19-CP in the second wave exceeded those in the first wave despite the nonsignificant difference (39 of 576 v 8 of 163; P = .5). Compared with nononcological patients, C19-CP were older (median age 70 years [interquartile range 61-77] v 60 years [interquartile range 45-73]; P = .02) and presented more often with ≥ 2 comorbidities (40.4% v 24.3%; P = .02). Compared with nononcological patients, in C19-CP, respiratory failure (29 of 47 v 321 of 692; P = .049) and hospitalization (37 of 47 v 363 of 692; P = .0004) were higher, with comparable frequencies across the waves. Five of 24 and 10 of 27 hospitalized cancer patients in the first and second waves developed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: C19-CP were a vulnerable population, irrespective of the COVID-19 waves. This highlights the need to prioritize vaccinations in oncological patients to safeguard and guarantee optimal anticancer care.

Post-progression outcomes of NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% receiving first-line single-agent pembrolizumab in a large multicentre real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment sequencing with first-line immunotherapy, followed by second-line chemotherapy, is still a viable option for NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%. METHODS: We evaluated post-progression treatment pathways in a large real-world cohort of metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. RESULTS: Overall, 974 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 22.7 months (95%CI: 21.6-38.2), the median overall survival (OS) of the entire population was 15.8 months (95%CI: 13.5-17.5; 548 events). At the data cutoff, among the 678 patients who experienced disease progression, 379 (55.9%) had not received any further treatment, and 359 patients (52.9%) had died. Patients who did not receive post-progression therapies were older (p = 0.0011), with a worse ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and were on corticosteroids prior to pembrolizumab (p = 0.0024). At disease progression, 198 patients (29.2%) received a switched approach and 101 (14.9%) received pembrolizumab ByPD either alone (64 [9.4%]) or in combination with local ablative treatments (37 [5.5%]) (LATs). After a random-case control matching according to ECOG-PS, CNS metastases, bone metastases, and (previous) best response to pembrolizumab, patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD plus LATs were confirmed to have a significantly longer post-progression OS compared to patients receiving pembrolizumab ByPD alone 13.9 months versus 7.8 months (p = 0.0179) 241 patients (35.5%) among the 678 who had experienced PD, received a second-line systemic treatment (regardless of previous treatment beyond PD). As compared to first-line treatment commencement, patients' features at the moment of second-line initiation showed a significantly higher proportion of patients aged under 70 years (p = 0.0244), with a poorer ECOG-PS (p < 0.0001) and having CNS (p = 0.0001), bone (p = 0.0266) and liver metastases (p = 0.0148). CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world scenario NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50% treated with first-line single-agent pembrolizumab achieve worse outcomes as compared to the Keynote-024 trial. Poor post-progression outcomes are major determinants of the global results that should be considered when counselling patients for first-line treatment choices.