Systematic vitamin D supplementation is associated with improved outcomes and reduced thyroid adverse events in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: results from the prospective PROVIDENCE study.

BACKGROUND: Hypovitaminosis D can have a negative prognostic impact in patients with cancer. Vitamin D has a demonstrated role in T-cell-mediated immune activation. We hypothesized that systematic vitamin D repletion could impact clinical outcomes in patients with cancer receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: We planned a prospective observational study (PROVIDENCE) to assess serum vitamin D levels in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs (cohort 1 at treatment initiation, cohort 2 during treatment) and the impact of systematic repletion on survival and toxicity outcomes. In an exploratory analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes of cohort 1 with a control cohort of patients followed at the participating centers who did not receive systematic vitamin D repletion. RESULTS: Overall, 164 patients were prospectively recruited in the PROVIDENCE study. In cohort 1, consisting of 101 patients with 94.1% hypovitaminosis (≤ 30 ng/ml) at baseline, adequate repletion with cholecalciferol was obtained in 70.1% at the three months re-assessment. Cohort 2 consisted of 63 patients assessed for vitamin D at a median time of 3.7 months since immunotherapy initiation, with no patients having adequate levels (> 30 ng/ml). Even in cohort 2, systematic supplementation led to adequate levels in 77.8% of patients at the three months re-assessment. Compared to a retrospective control group of 238 patients without systematic vitamin D repletion, PROVIDENCE cohort 1 showed longer overall survival (OS, p = 0.013), time to treatment failure (TTF, p = 0.017), and higher disease control rate (DCR, p = 0.016). The Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighing (IPTW) fitted multivariable Cox regression confirmed the significantly decreased risk of death (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34-0.90) and treatment discontinuation (HR 0.61, 95%CI: 0.40-0.91) for patients from PROVIDENCE cohort 1 in comparison to the control cohort. In the context of longer treatment exposure, the cumulative incidence of any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was higher in the PROVIDENCE cohort 1 compared to the control cohort. Nevertheless, patients from cohort 1 experienced a significantly decreased risk of all grade thyroid irAEs than the control cohort (OR 0.16, 95%CI: 0.03-0.85). CONCLUSION: The PROVIDENCE study suggests the potential positive impact of early systematic vitamin D supplementation on outcomes of patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs and support adequate repletion as a possible prophylaxis for thyroid irAEs.

Efficacy and safety of frontline systemic therapy for advanced HCC: A network meta-analysis of landmark phase III trials.

Background & Aims: Direct comparisons across first-line regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are not available. We performed a network metanalysis of phase III of trials to compare first-line systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, disease control rate, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Methods: After performing a literature review from January 2008 to September 2022, we screened 6,329 studies and reviewed 3,009 studies, leading to identification of 15 phase III trials for analysis. We extracted odds ratios for objective response rate and disease control rate, relative risks for AEs, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for OS and PFS, and used a frequentist network metanalysis, with fixed-effect multivariable meta-regression models to estimate the indirect pooled HRs, odds ratios, relative risks, and corresponding 95% CIs, considering sorafenib as reference. Results: Of 10,820 included patients, 10,444 received active treatment and 376 placebo. Sintilimab + IBI350, camrelizumab + rivoceranib, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab provided the greatest reduction in the risk of death compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.57 (95% CI 0.43-0.75), 0.62 (95% CI 0.49-0.79), and 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.84), respectively. Considering PFS, camrelizumab + rivoceranib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were associated with the greatest reduction in the risk of PFS events compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.52 (95% CI 0.41-0.65) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.35-0.77), respectively. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapies carried the lowest risk for all-grade and grade ≥3 AEs. Conclusions: The combinations of ICI + anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, and double ICIs lead to the greatest OS benefit compared with sorafenib, whereas ICI + kinase inhibitor regimens are associated with greater PFS benefit at the cost of higher toxicity rates. Impact and Implications: In the last few years, many different therapies have been studied for patients with primary liver cancer that cannot be treated with surgery. In these cases, anticancer drugs (alone or in combination) are given with the intent to keep the cancer at bay and, ultimately, to prolong survival. Among all the therapies that have been investigated, the combination of immunotherapy (drugs that boost the immune system against the cancer) and anti-angiogenic agents (drugs that act on tumoural vessels) has appeared the best to improve survival. Similarly, the combination of two types of immunotherapies that activate the immune system at different levels has also shown positive results. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022366330.

What cancer patients actually know regarding medical cannabis? A cross-sectional survey with a critical analysis of the current attitudes.

BACKGROUND: In Italy medical cannabis is a prescription drug since 1998. Even though it could not be considered a therapy as such, it is indicated as a symptomatic treatment also in cancer patients, to cure iatrogenic nausea/vomiting and chronic pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a knowledge survey about medical cannabis among cancer patients referred to two outpatient cancer care centers and a home care service. RESULTS: From February to April 2018, 232 patient were enrolled; 210 patients were on active disease-oriented treatment (90.5%), while 22 (9.5%) not. Eighty-one percent of the patients have heard about medical cannabis, but only 2% from healthcare professionals. Thirty-four percent of responders thought about using cannabis to treat one or more of their own health problems, especially pain (55%). Despite that, 18% of the participants believe that medical cannabis could have negative effects on their own symptoms. Patients with high educational level better knew cannabis (odds ratio = 3.52; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-11.53), and medical cannabis (odds ratio = 3.21; 95% confidence interval: 1.48-6.98), when compared to patient with low educational level. Patients who were on active disease-oriented treatment better knew medical cannabis (odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval: 1.26-12.11) compared to "out of treatment" patients. Metastatic patients were less informed about medical cannabis compared to patients on adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows that most of Italian cancer patients know medical cannabis and a third of them have considered using cannabis to treat one (or more) of their own health problems. In the same time, they are poorly informed and do not tend to ask for information about medical cannabis to healthcare professionals.