Primary resistance to immunotherapy in patients with a dMMR/MSI metastatic gastrointestinal cancer: who is at risk? An AGEO real-world study.

BACKGROUND: The outstanding efficacy of immunotherapy in metastatic dMMR/MSI gastro-intestinal (GI) cancers has led to a rapid increase in the number of patients treated. However, 20-30% of patients experience primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIPR) and need better characterization. METHODS: This AGEO real-world study retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of ICIs and identified clinical variables associated with ICIPR in patients with metastatic dMMR/MSI GI cancers treated with immunotherapy between 2015 and 2022. RESULTS: 399 patients were included, 284 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 115 with non-CRC, mostly treated by an anti-PD(L)1 (88.0%). PFS at 24 months was 55.8% (95CI [50.8-61.2]) and OS at 48 months was 59.1% (95CI [53.0-65.9]). ORR was 51.0%, and 25.1% of patients were ICIPR. There was no statistical difference in ORR, DCR, PFS, or OS between CRC and non-CRC groups. In multivariable analysis, ICIPR was associated with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (OR = 3.36), liver metastases (OR = 2.19), peritoneal metastases (OR = 2.00), ≥1 previous line of treatment (OR = 1.83), and age≤50 years old (OR = 1.76). CONCLUSION: These five clinical factors associated with primary resistance to ICIs should be considered by physicians to guide treatment choice in GI dMMR/MSI metastatic cancer patients.

A novel risk classification model integrating CEA, ctDNA, and pTN stage for stage 3 colon cancer: a post hoc analysis of the IDEA-France trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the added value of incorporating carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) to circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and pathological TN (pTN) stage for risk classification in stage 3 colon cancer (CC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed postoperative CEA values in patients with CC from the IDEA-France phase 3 trial. The relation between disease-free survival (DFS) and CEA was modeled through restricted cubic splines. Prognostic value of CEA, ctDNA, and pTN was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis was used to identify prognostic and predictive factors for DFS. RESULTS: Among 696 patients (35%), CEA values were retrievable, and for 405 (20%) both CEA and ctDNA were available. An optimized CEA threshold of 2 ng/mL was identified, the 3-year DFS was 66.4% for patients above the threshold and 80.9% for those below (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.33-2.28, P < .001). In multivariate analysis, CEA ≥ 2 ng/mL contributed significantly to model variability, becoming an independent prognostic factor for DFS (HR, 1.82; 95% CI,1.27-2.59), alongside ctDNA (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.16-3.03) and pTN (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.24-2.54). A novel integrated risk classification combining CEA, ctDNA, and pTN stage reclassified 19.8% of pT4/N2 patients as low risk and 2.5% of pT3/N1 patients as high risk. This new classification demonstrated the 3-year DFS of 80.8% for low-risk patients and 55.4% for high-risk patients (HR, 2.66, 95% CI, 1.84-3.86, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative CEA value is a prognostic factor for DFS in stage 3 CC, independently of ctDNA and pTN. It advocates for systematic reporting in future adjuvant trials. Integrating both biomarkers with pTN could refine risk classification in stage 3 CC.

TIVAP-related infection due to Gram-negative aerobic bacilli: should TIVAP stay or should it go?

We aimed to describe the outcome of totally implantable venous-access port (TIVAP)-related infections due to Gram-negative aerobic bacilli (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia), or GNAB, and assess the safety of conservative treatment. We conducted a retrospective study in a French teaching hospital, from January 2016 to December 2020, including adult patients treated for TIVAP-related infection due to GNAB. Success of conservative treatment was defined as a functional TIVAP 3 months after infection with no recurrence. We performed a bivariate analysis and analyzed causes for treatment failure. We included 68 patients (53 TIVAP-related bloodstream infections, 11 TIVAP-related infections, and 4 probable TIVAP-related infections) due to GNAB, mostly P. aeruginosa (50/68, 74%). TIVAP removal was initially decided for 49/68 patients (72%). Among the 19/68 (28%) patients with conservative treatment (all for infections caused by P. aeruginosa), 5/19 (26%) had successful treatment, 7/19 (37%) experienced failure (without sepsis or septic shock), 6/19 (32%) died within 3 months without TIVAP removal and no signs of infection recurrence, and 1 patient had TIVAP removal as it was no longer required. TIVAP-related infections caused by GNAB frequently require TIVAP removal. Conservative treatment can be performed in selected patients with a non-complicated infection caused by P. aeruginosa, who can benefit from the continuation of antineoplastic chemotherapy or palliative care. Treatment failures were not associated with sepsis or septic shock.

Optimal treatment strategy after first-line induction therapy in advanced HER2-positive oeso-gastric adenocarcinoma-a retrospective, international, multicentric AGEO study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy after first-line induction therapy in advanced HER2-positive oeso-gastric adenocarcinoma (OGA) remains challenging. METHODS: Patients treated with trastuzumab (T) plus platinum salts and fluoropyrimidine (F) as first-line chemotherapy between 2010 and 2020 for HER2-positive advanced OGA at 17 academic care centers in France, Italy, and Austria were included. The primary objective was the comparison of F + T vs T alone as maintenance regimen in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after a platinum-based chemotherapy induction + T. As secondary objective, PFS and OS between patients treated with reintroduction of initial chemotherapy or standard second-line chemotherapy at progression were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 157 patients included, 86 (55%) received F + T and 71 (45%) T alone as a maintenance regimen after a median of 4 months of induction chemotherapy. Median PFS from start of maintenance therapy was 5.1 months in both groups (95% CI 4.2-7.7 for F + T and 95% CI 3.7-7.5 for T alone; p = 0.60) and median OS was 15.2 (95% CI 10.9-19.1) and 17.0 months (95% CI 15.5-21.6) for F + T and T alone, respectively (p = 0.40). Of 112/157 patients (71%) receiving systemic therapy after progression under maintenance, 26/112 (23%) were treated with a reintroduction of initial chemotherapy + T and 86/112 (77%) with a standard second-line regimen. Here, median OS was significantly longer with the reintroduction (13.8 (95% CI 12.1-19.9) vs 9.0 months (95% CI 7.1-11.9); p = 0.007) as confirmed by multivariate analysis (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.85; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: No additional benefit of adding F to T monotherapy as a maintenance treatment could be observed. Reintroduction of initial therapy at first progression may be a feasible approach to preserve later treatment lines.

FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study.

After failure of first line FOLFOX-bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), adding either bevacizumab or aflibercept to second-line FOLFIRI increases survival compared to FOLFIRI alone. In this French retrospective multicentre cohort, we included patients with a mCRC treated with either FOLFIRI-aflibercept or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR: CR + PR + SD) and safety. We included 681 patients from 36 centers, 326 and 355 in the aflibercept and bevacizumab groups, respectively. Median age was 64.2 years and 45.2% of patients were men. Most patients had RAS-mutated tumors (80.8%) and synchronous metastases (85.7%). After a median follow up of 31.2 months, median OS was 13.0 months (95% CI: 11.3-14.7) and 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-11.4) in the bevacizumab and aflibercept groups, respectively (P < .0001). Median PFS was 6.0 months (95% CI: 5.4-6.5) and 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.3-5.6) (P < .0001). After adjustment on age, PS, PFS of first line, primary tumor resection, metastasis location and RAS/BRAF status, bevacizumab was still associated with better OS (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.86, P = .0003). FOLFIRI-bevacizumab combination was associated with longer OS and PFS, and a better tolerability, as compared to FOLFIRI-aflibercept after progression on FOLFOX-bevacizumab.

Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel or Gemcitabine alone after FOLFIRINOX failure in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a real-world AGEO study.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine (Gem) alone or with Nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is used as second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPA) after FOLFIRINOX (FFX) failure; however, no comparative data exist. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of adding Nab-paclitaxel to Gem for mPA after FFX failure. METHODS: In this retrospective real-world multicenter study, from 2011 to 2019, patients with mPA receiving Gem-Nab (Gem 1000 mg/m² + Nab 125 mg/m², 3 out of 4 weeks) or Gem alone were included after progression on FFX. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients were included. Patients receiving Gem-Nab had more metastatic sites, peritoneal disease and less PS 2 (24% vs. 35%). After median follow-up of 22 months, Gem-Nab was associated with better disease control rate (DCR) (56% vs. 32%; P < 0.001), progression-free survival (PFS) (3.5 vs. 2.3 months; 95% CI: 0.43-0.65) and overall survival (OS) (7.1 vs. 4.7 months; 95% CI: 0.53-0.86). After multivariate analysis, Gem-Nab and PS 0/1 were associated with better OS and PFS. Grade 3/4 toxicity was more frequent with Gem-Nab (44% vs. 29%). CONCLUSION: In this study, Gem-Nab was associated with better DCR, PFS and OS compared with Gem alone in patients with mPA after FFX failure, at the cost of higher toxicity.

Validation of a deep learning segmentation algorithm to quantify the skeletal muscle index and sarcopenia in metastatic renal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a deep learning (DL) algorithm for measurement of skeletal muscular index (SMI) and prediction of overall survival in oncology populations. METHODS: A retrospective single-center observational study included patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2019. A set of 37 patients was used for technical validation of the algorithm, comparing manual vs DL-based evaluations. Segmentations were compared using mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), SMI using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. Overall survivals (OS) were compared using log-rank (Kaplan-Meier) and Mann-Whitney tests. Generalizability of the prognostic value was tested in an independent validation population (N = 87). RESULTS: Differences between two manual segmentations (DSC = 0.91, CCC = 0.98 for areas) or manual vs. automated segmentation (DSC = 0.90, CCC = 0.98 for areas, CCC = 0.97 for SMI) had the same order of magnitude. Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference of -3.33 cm2 [95%CI: -15.98, 9.1] between two manual segmentations, and -3.28 cm2 [95% CI: -14.77, 8.21] for manual vs. automated segmentations. With each method, 20/37 (56%) patients were classified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenic vs. non-sarcopenic groups had statistically different survival curves with median OS of 6.0 vs. 12.5 (p = 0.008) and 6.0 vs. 13.9 (p = 0.014) months respectively for manual and DL methods. In the independent validation population, sarcopenic patients according to DL had a lower OS (10.7 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: A DL algorithm allowed accurate estimation of SMI compared to manual reference standard. The DL-calculated SMI demonstrated a prognostic value in terms of OS. KEY POINTS: • A deep learning algorithm allows accurate estimation of skeletal muscle index compared to a manual reference standard with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.97. • Sarcopenic patients according to SMI thresholds after segmentation by the deep learning algorithm had statistically significantly lower overall survival compared to non-sarcopenic patients.

Biological Rationale for Peripheral Blood Cell-Derived Inflammatory Indices and Related Prognostic Scores in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe the biological rationale of peripheral blood cells (PBC)-derived inflammatory indexes and assess the related prognostic scores for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). RECENT FINDINGS: Inflammatory indexes based on PBC may indicate a pro-inflammatory condition affecting the immune response to cancer. The lung immune prognostic index (LIPI), consisting of derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and lactate dehydrogenase, is a validated prognostic tool, especially for pretreated aNSCLC patients, where the combination of NLR and PD-L1 tumour expression might also be predictive of immunotherapy benefit. In untreated high-PD-L1 aNSCLC patients, the Lung-Immune-Prognostic score (LIPS), including NLR, ECOG PS and concomitant steroids, is prognostic, and its modified version might indicate patients with favourable outcomes despite an ECOG PS of 2. NLR times platelets (i.e., SII), included in the NHS-Lung score, might improve the prognostication for combined chemoimmunotherapy. PBC-derived inflammatory indexes and related scores represent accurate, reproducible and non-expensive prognostic tools with clinical and research utility.

Role of FOLFIRINOX and chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: update of the AGEO cohort.

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX has shown promising results in locally advanced (LAPA) or borderline resectable (BRPA) pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We report here a cohort of patients treated with this regimen from the AGEO group. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentre study. We included all consecutive patients with non-pre-treated LAPA or BRPA treated with FOLFIRINOX. RESULTS: We included 330 patients (57.9% male, 65.4% <65 years, 96.4% PS <2). Disease was classified as BRPA in 31.1% or LAPA in 68.9%. Objective response rate with FOLFIRINOX was 29.5% and stable disease 51%. Subsequent CRT was performed in 46.4% of patients and 23.9% had curative intent surgery. Resection rates were 42.1% for BRPA and 15.5% for LAPA. Main G3/4 toxicities were fatigue (15%), neutropenia (12%) and neuropathy (G2/3 35%). After a median follow-up of 26.7 months, median OS (mOS) and PFS were 21.4 and 12.4 months, respectively. For patients treated by FOLFIRINOX alone, or FOLFIRINOX followed by CRT, or FOLFIRINOX + /- CRT + surgery, mOS was 16.8 months, 21.8 months and not reached, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRINOX for LAPA and BRPA seems to be effective with a manageable toxicity profile. These promising results in "real-life" patients now have to be confirmed in a Phase 3 randomised trial.

The Effect of Concomitant Proton Pump Inhibitor and Cabozantinib on the Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Cabozantinib is a weak base that exhibits a pH-dependent solubility profile in vitro which raises concerns about its bioavailability in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether PPI use has an impact on the efficacy, safety, and residual concentration (Ctrough) of cabozantinib in patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected electronic database of patients with mRCC who received cabozantinib at Gustave Roussy between February 2014 and December 2018. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis and the Cox proportional-hazard model for uni- and multivariate analysis. In parallel, we conducted a pharmacokinetic study of cabozantinib in a distinct cohort of 50 mRCC patients, in which cabozantinib Ctrough was assayed using a validated tandem mass spectrometry-liquid chromatography method. RESULTS: We identified 99 patients treated with cabozantinib, including 43 patients being PPI users. With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, PPI users showed similar progression-free survival and overall survival outcomes compared with PPI nonusers. Similarly, the incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the PPI users and nonusers, although PPI users required dose reductions more often. In the independent pharmacokinetic cohort, of whom 21 received PPI concomitantly, Ctrough was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In line with the pharmacologic data, the concomitant use of PPI does not significantly impact the efficacy or safety of cabozantinib in patients with mRCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Drug interactions, especially between targeted therapies and proton pump inhibitors (PPI), were shown to potentially impact the outcomes of cancer patients. Cabozantinib, a current therapeutic standard in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), exhibits a pH-dependent solubility profile, which raises concerns about its bioavailability in patients treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPI). At the present time, there is no evidence regarding the effect of PPIs on cabozantinib's efficacy and safety in patients with mRCC. This study found that the concomitant use of PPI during cabozantinib treatment in mRCC patients does not appear to impact the residual concentration, efficacy, and safety of cabozantinib in a real-life context.

Cabazitaxel schedules in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a review.

Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) is the standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. It is associated with a risk of neutropenic complications, which may be a barrier to its use in daily clinical practice, particularly in frail elderly patients. Here the authors reviewed key studies conducted with cabazitaxel (TROPIC, PROSELICA, AFFINITY, CARD and the European compassionate use program) and pilot studies with adapted schedules. Based on this review, the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor from cycle 1 appears crucial to maximize the benefit-risk ratio of cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Preliminary data with alternative schedules look promising, especially for frail patients. Results of the ongoing Phase III CABASTY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02961257) are awaited.

Association of the prognostic model iSEND with PD-1/L1 monotherapy outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accessible biomarkers are needed for immunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We previously described a multivariate risk prediction model, the iSEND, which categorises advanced NSCLC patients treated with nivolumab into Good, Intermediate or Poor groups. This model was developed by using only clinical and analytical variables (sex, ECOG-performance status, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR] and post-treatment delta NLR). METHODS: An international database of 439 patients who received post-platinum PD-1/L1 monotherapies was collected for validation. Performance of the iSEND to different PD-L1 groups was compared by using time-dependent positive predictive value (PPV) for their mortality events. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 18.2 months (95% CI: 15.9-19.6). The overall survival of the iSEND Good (HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.22-0.43, p < 0.0001) was superior to the iSEND Poor. Time-dependent PPV for mortality of iSEND Poor was superior to PD-L1 = 0% group at 12 (75 vs. 53%, p = 0.01) and 18 months (85 vs. 46%, p = 0.03). However, female gender did not independently associate with better outcome in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: The iSEND model is associated with the outcome of post-platinum PD-1/L1 monotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients. The iSEND Poor demonstrated a superior performance to PD-L1 = 0% in negative prognostication. Prospective investigation and modelling with other significant parameters in a larger cohort are warranted.

Association of post-operative CEA with survival and oxaliplatin benefit in patients with stage II colon cancer: a post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment for stage II colon cancer (CC) can be proposed to patients with high-risk disease. Recently, 2.35 ng/mL carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was identified as the best cut-off value. This post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial assessed post-operative CEA prognostic value for survival outcomes and predictive value for the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Prognostic and predictive values of post-operative CEA in patients with stage II CC were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox model with interaction terms. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS: Among 899 stage II CC patients, post-operative CEA was available in 867 (96.4%); and 434 (48.65%) had a high-risk stage II disease. The 3-year DFS rate was 88.5% and 78.7% in the ≤ 2.35 ng/mL and > 2.35 ng/mL group, respectively (P = 0.006). Use of oxaliplatin showed survival benefit only in patients with high-risk stage II CC and post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/ml (interaction term P = 0.09 and 0.03 for DFS and OS). CONCLUSION: CEA is a strong prognostic factor for DFS and OS in stage II CC. In the MOSAIC trial, only high-risk stage II CC patients with post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/mL benefited from the addition of oxaliplatin to LV5FU2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00275210 (January 11, 2006).

Real-life implementation and evaluation of the e-referral system SIPILINK.

INTRODUCTION: General Practitioners (GPs) play a key role of gatekeeper, as they coordinate patients' care. However, most of them reported having difficulty to refer patients to hospital, especially in semi-urgent context. To facilitate the referral of semi-urgent patients, we implemented an e-referral platform, named SIPILINK, within 4 wards from a large public French hospital (internal medicine, diabetology, gynaecological surgery and oncology wards). Here, we aimed to evaluate the SIPILINK e-referral platform after 2 years of implementation. METHODS: The evaluation included a multidimensional assessment based on the RE-AIM framework with the analysis of implementation, requests, health professionals' satisfaction, and estimated hospital payment. RESULTS: Over 2 years of implementation, GPs sent 113 requests to hospital. Hospital respected the time of response requested by GPs in 93 % of cases and proposed a consultation or hospitalization in respectively 40.7 % and 10.6 % of cases. 100 % of GPs and 78 % of Hospital Practitioners (HPs) were satisfied with the quality of exchanges. 77 % of HPs and 100 % of Care Pathway Managers (CPMs) found that patient care pathways were improved. Nearly all practitioners would recommend this platform for patient referrals. DISCUSSION: SIPILINK shows promise in streamlining the referral process, enhancing communication, and improving patient care pathways. Further studies including the impact on the quality of care, are needed to assess its effectiveness and sustainability in healthcare settings.

A multicenter study evaluating efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-colorectal digestive cancers with microsatellite instability.

BACKGROUND: One randomized phase III trial comparing chemotherapy (CT) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated significant efficacy of ICI in deficient DNA mismatch repair system/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer. However, few studies have compared ICI with CT in other advanced dMMR/MSI-H digestive tumors. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we included patients with advanced dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive tumors treated with chemotherapy and/or ICIs. Patients were divided retrospectively into two groups, a CT group and an immunotherapy (IO) group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A propensity score approach using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to deal with potential differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 133 patients (45.1/27.1/27.8% with gastric/small bowel/other carcinomas) were included. The majority of patients received ICI in 1st (29.1%) or 2nd line (44.4%). The 24-month PFS rates were 7.9% in the CT group and 71.2% in the IO group. Using the IPTW method, IO treatment was associated with better PFS (HR=0.227; 95% CI 0.147-0.351; p < 0.0001). The overall response rate was 26.3% in the CT group versus 60.7% in the IO group (p < 0.001) with prolonged duration of disease control in the IO group (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, predictive factors of PFS for patients treated with IO were good performance status, absence of liver metastasis and prior primary tumor resection, whereas no association was found for the site of the primary tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of randomized trials, our study highlights the superior efficacy of ICI compared with standard-of-care therapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive cancer, regardless of tumor type, with acceptable toxicity.

The FLARE Score and Circulating Neutrophils in Patients with Cancer and COVID-19 Disease.

PURPOSE: Inflammation and neutrophils play a central role in both COVID-19 disease and cancer. We aimed to assess the impact of pre-existing tumor-related inflammation on COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer and to elucidate the role of circulating neutrophil subpopulations. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of 524 patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection, assessing the relationship between clinical outcomes and circulating inflammatory biomarkers collected before and during COVID-19 infection. Additionally, a single-center prospective cohort study provided data for an exploratory analysis, assessing the immunophenotype of circulating neutrophils and inflammatory cytokines. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and the severity of COVID-19 disease. RESULTS: Prior to COVID-19, 25% of patients with cancer exhibited elevated dNLR, which increased to 55% at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. We developed the FLARE score, incorporating both tumor- and infection-induced inflammation, which categorized patients into four prognostic groups. The poor prognostic group had a 30-day mortality rate of 68%, significantly higher than the 23% in the favorable group (p < 0.0001). This score proved to be an independent predictor of early mortality. This prospective analysis revealed a shift towards immature forms of neutrophils and higher IL-6 levels in patients with cancer and severe COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: A pre-existing tumor-induced pro-inflammatory state significantly impacts COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. The FLARE score, derived from circulating inflammatory markers, emerges as an easy-to-use, globally accessible, effective tool for clinicians to identify patients with cancer at heightened risk of severe COVID-19 complications and early mortality who might benefit most from immediate and intensive treatment strategies. Furthermore, our findings underscore the significance of immature neutrophils in the progression of COVID-19 in patients with cancer, advocating for further investigation into how these cells contribute to both cancer and COVID-19 disease.

Association Between Lung Immune Prognostic Index and Durvalumab Consolidation Outcomes in Patients With Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The LIPI, based on pretreatment derived neutrophils/[leukocytes-neutrophils] ratio (dNLR) and LDH, is associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess baseline LIPI correlation with durvalumab consolidation outcomes in the locally advanced setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicentre retrospective study (330 patients) with stage III unresectable NSCLC treated with durvalumab after chemo-radiotherapy between April 2015 and December 2020; 65 patients treated with chemo-radiotherapy only. Baseline LIPI characterized 3 groups: good (dNLR≤3+LDH≤ULN), intermediate (dNLR>3/LDH>ULN) and poor (dNLR>3+LDH>ULN). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the durvalumab cohort, median age was 67 years, 95% smokers, 98% with a performance status of 0-1; 60% had nonsquamous histology and 16% a PD-L1 expression <1%. Radiotherapy was delivered concurrently in 81%. LIPI was evaluable in 216 patients: 66% good, 31% intermediate, 3% poor. LIPI significantly correlated with median OS (median follow-up: 19 months): 18.1 months vs. 47.0 months vs. not reached in poor, intermediate and good LIPI groups, respectively (P = .03). A trend between objective response rate and LIPI groups was observed: 0% vs. 41% vs. 45%, respectively (P = .05). The pooled intermediate/poor LIPI group was associated with shorter OS (HR 1.97; P = .03) and higher risk of progressive disease (OR 2.68; P = .047). Survivals and response were not influenced in the control cohort. CONCLUSION: Baseline LIPI correlated with outcomes in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with durvalumab consolidation, but not in those who only received chemo-radiotherapy, providing further evidence of its prognostic and potential predictive role of ICI benefit in NSCLC.

[Collecting duct carcinoma and renal medullary carcinoma in the age of new therapies]. / Tumeurs de Bellini et carcinomes médullaires rénaux à l'ère des nouvelles thérapies.

Collecting duct carcinoma (also known as Bellini tumour) and renal medullary carcinoma are two extremely rare and aggressive renal cancers. They are both less responsive to conventional treatments used in clear cell renal carcinoma. There are very few studies evaluating their optimal management and currently, at the metastatic stage, polychemotherapy based on platinum salts remains the most widely used. The emergence of new treatments such as anti-angiogenic TKIs, immunotherapy or treatments targeting specific genetic abnormalities, opens up a new field of possibilities in the management of these cancers. The evaluation of the response to these treatments is therefore essential. In this article, we will review the status of their management and the various studies that have evaluated recent treatments in these two cancers.