Basal and one-month differed neutrophil, lymphocyte and platelet values and their ratios strongly predict the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors immunotherapy in patients with advanced BRAF wild-type melanoma.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the capability of basal and one-month differed white blood cells (WBC), neutrophil, lymphocyte and platelet values and their ratios (neutrophils-to-lymphocytes ratio, NLR, and platelets-to-lymphocytes ratio, PLR) in predicting the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in metastatic melanoma (MM). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 272 BRAF wild-type MM patients treated with first line ICI. Bivariable analysis was used to correlate patient/tumor characteristics with clinical outcomes. Variations between time 1 and time 0 (Δ) of blood parameters were also calculated and dichotomized using cut-off values assessed by ROC curve. RESULTS: At baseline, higher neutrophils and NLR negatively correlated with PFS, OS and disease control rate (DCR). Higher PLR was also associated with worse OS. In multivariable analysis, neutrophils (p = 0.003), WBC (p = 0.069) and LDH (p = 0.07) maintained their impact on PFS, while OS was affected by LDH (p < 0.001), neutrophils (p < 0.001) and PLR (p = 0.022), while DCR by LDH (p = 0.03) and neutrophils (p = 0.004). In the longitudinal analysis, PFS negatively correlated with higher Δplatelets (p = 0.039), ΔWBC (p < 0.001), and Δneutrophils (p = 0.020), and with lower Δlymphocytes (p < 0.001). Moreover, higher ΔNLR and ΔPLR identified patients with worse PFS, OS and DCR. In the multivariable model, only ΔNLR influenced PFS (p = 0.004), while OS resulted affected by higher ΔWBC (p < 0.001) and lower Δlymphocytes (p = 0.038). Higher ΔWBC also affected the DCR (p = 0.003). When clustering patients in 4 categories using basal LDH and ΔNLR, normal LDH/lower ΔNLR showed a higher PFS than high LDH/higher ΔNLR (20 vs 5 months). Moreover, normal LDH/higher Δlymphocytes had a higher OS than high LDH/lower Δlymphocytes (50 vs. 10 months). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline and early variations of blood cells, together with basal LDH, strongly predict the efficacy of ICI in MM. Our findings propose simple, inexpensive biomarkers for a better selection of patient treatments. Prospective multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these data.

Feasibility and Predictive Performance of a Triage System for Patients with Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Triage procedures have been implemented to limit hospital access and minimize infection risk among patients with cancer during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. In the absence of prospective evidence, we aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of a triage system in the oncological setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzes hospital admissions to the oncology and hematology department of Udine, Italy, during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 30 to April 30, 2020). A total of 3,923 triage procedures were performed, and data of 1,363 individual patients were reviewed. RESULTS: A self-report triage questionnaire identified 6% of triage-positive procedures, with a sensitivity of 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.0%-85.4%), a specificity of 94.3% (95% CI, 93.5%-95.0%), and a positive predictive value of 5.9% (95% CI, 4.3%-8.0%) for the identification of patients who were not admitted to the hospital after medical review. Patients with thoracic cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53, p = .01), younger age (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.01, p < .01), and body temperature at admission ≥37°C (OR, 9.52; 95% CI, 5.44-16.6, p < .0001) had increased risk of positive triage. Direct hospital access was warranted to 93.5% of cases, a further 6% was accepted after medical evaluation, whereas 0.5% was refused at admission. CONCLUSION: A self-report questionnaire has a low positive predictive value to triage patients with cancer and suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) symptoms. Differential diagnosis with tumor- or treatment-related symptoms is always required to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Body temperature measurement improves the triage process's overall sensitivity, and widespread SARS-CoV-2 testing should be implemented to identify asymptomatic carriers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study to provide data on the predictive performance of a triage system in the oncological setting during the coronavirus disease outbreak. A questionnaire-based triage has a low positive predictive value to triage patients with cancer and suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) symptoms, and a differential diagnosis with tumor- or treatment-related symptoms is mandatory to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Consequently, adequate recourses should be reallocated for a triage implementation in the oncological setting. Of note, body temperature measurement improves the overall sensitivity of the triage process, and widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection should be implemented to identify asymptomatic carriers.

EFFECT: a randomized phase II study of efficacy and impact on function of two doses of nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment in older women with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the use of nab-paclitaxel in older patients with breast cancer. A weekly schedule is recommended, but there is a paucity of evidence regarding the optimal dose. We evaluated the efficacy of two different doses of weekly nab-paclitaxel, with a specific focus on their corresponding impact on patient function, in order to address the lack of data specifically relating to the older population. METHODS: EFFECT is an open-label, phase II trial wherein 160 women with advanced breast cancer aged ≥ 65 years were enrolled from 15 institutions within Italy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (arm A) or 125 mg/m2 (arm B) on days 1, 8, and 15 on a 28-day cycle, as first-line treatment for advanced disease. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), wherein an event was defined as disease progression (PD), functional decline (FD), or death. In each arm, the null hypothesis that the median EFS would be ≤ 7 months was tested against a one-sided alternative according to the Brookmeyer Crowley test. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.6 months, 140 events were observed in 158 evaluable patients. Median EFS was 8.2 months (90% CI, 5.9-8.9; p = 0.188) in arm A vs 8.3 months (90% CI, 6.2-9.7, p = 0.078) in arm B. Progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rates were similar in both groups. A higher percentage of dose reductions and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) was noted in arm B. The most frequently reported non-haematological AEs were fatigue (grade [G] 2-3 toxicity occurrence in arm A vs B, 43% and 51%, respectively) and peripheral neuropathy (G2-3 arm A vs B, 19% and 38%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Pre-specified outcomes were similar in both treatment arms. However, 100 mg/m2 was significantly better tolerated with fewer neurotoxicity-related events, representing a more feasible dose to be recommended for older patients with advanced disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT, 2012-002707-18 . Registered on June 4, 2012. NIH ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783222 . Retrospectively registered on May 26, 2016.

Clinico-radiological monitoring strategies in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a real-world study.

Aim: A monitoring strategy for metastatic breast cancer patients (M-MBC) has been little studied. Materials & methods: This retrospective study analyzed a consecutive cohort of 382 MBC patients to analyze different M-MBC strategies to identify factors influencing intensive M-MBC. Results: Elevated baseline serum tumor markers (STM) was the strongest factor associated with increased use of STM tests. Having more frequent oncology office visits was associated with more intensive chemotherapy/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using. Increased use of imaging tests was associated with participation to clinical trial. Single and elderly patients were less likely to have frequent testing. Having clinically measurable disease was less likely to have more intensive M-MBC. Conclusion: STM testing and scans were frequently ordered in M-MBC. In the present study, strategies are little influenced by clinico-pathological characteristics.

Comparison of primary breast cancer and paired metastases: biomarkers discordance influence on outcome and therapy.

AIM: Discordance between primary tumor and paired metastases biology has been widely detected in metastatic breast cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of Ki67, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 discordance. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 544 patients affected by metastatic breast cancer. Variation in ER, PR, Ki67 and HER2 expression between primary site and recurrence was tested through the McNemar test. RESULTS: A significant variation was observed in respect to ER, PR and Ki67 status (12.65%, p = 0.0072; 49.71%, p < 0.0001; 35%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Among patients with ER or PR discordance, the driver of therapeutic decisions was the ER status. Moreover, we observed a therapy-related reduction of ER in taxanes or aromatase inhibitors-exposed patients (odds ratio: 3.59; 95% CI: 1.66-7.77; p = 0.001 and odds ratio: 2.07; 95% CI: 0.96-4.44; p = 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSION: Biopsy of metastatic lesions may influence the decision-making process translating into better outcome.

Everolimus Plus Exemestane in Advanced Breast Cancer: Safety Results of the BALLET Study on Patients Previously Treated Without and with Chemotherapy in the Metastatic Setting.

BACKGROUND: The BALLET study was an open-label, multicenter, expanded access study designed to allow treatment with everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer progressed following prior endocrine therapy. A post hoc analysis to evaluate if previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting affects the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane was conducted on the Italian subset, as it represented the major part of the patients enrolled (54%). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand one hundred and fifty-one Italian patients were included in the present post hoc analysis, which focused on two sets of patients: patients who never received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (36.1%) and patients who received at least one chemotherapy treatment in the metastatic setting (63.9%). RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and sixteen patients (97.0%) prematurely discontinued the study drug, and the main reasons reported were disease progression (39.1%), local reimbursement of everolimus (31.1%), and adverse events (AEs) (16.1%). The median duration of study treatment exposure was 139.5 days for exemestane and 135.0 days for everolimus. At least one AE was experienced by 92.5% of patients. The incidence of everolimus-related AEs was higher (83.9%) when compared with those that occurred with exemestane (29.1%), and the most commonly reported everolimus-related AE was stomatitis (51.3%). However, no significant difference in terms of safety related to the combination occurred between patients without and with chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. CONCLUSION: Real-life data of the Italian patients BALLET-related cohort were an adequate setting to state that previous chemotherapy did not affect the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With the advent of new targeted agents for advanced or metastatic breast cancer, multiple lines of therapy may be possible, and components of the combined regimens can overlap from one line to another. Thus, it is important to assess even the potential of cumulative and additive toxic effects among the drugs. Previous chemotherapy did not affect the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane. The continuous monitoring of the safety signals of this drug combination from general clinical practice is important, in particular for stomatitis.

Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer in a Real-World Scenario: Is Progression-Free Survival With First Line Predictive of Benefit From Second and Later Lines?

INTRODUCTION: Despite the availability of several therapeutic options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), no robust predictive factors are available to help clinical decision making. Nevertheless, a decreasing benefit from first line to subsequent lines of treatment is commonly observed. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of benefit from first-line therapy on outcome with subsequent lines. METHODS: We analyzed a consecutive series of 472 MBC patients treated with chemotherapy (CT) and/or endocrine therapy (ET) between 2004 and 2012. We evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) at first (PFS1), second, third, and fourth therapeutic lines, according to treatment (ET and/or CT) and tumor subtypes. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, median overall survival was 34 months, and median PFS1 was 9 months. A 6-month benefit was shown by 289 patients (63.5%) at first line, 128 (40.5%) at second line, 76 (33.8%) at third line, and 34 (23.3%) at fourth line. Not having a 6-month benefit at PFS1 was associated with less chance of benefit at second line (odds ratio [OR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.77, p = .0026) and at any line beyond first (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.24-0.62, p < .0001). In the total series, after stratification for tumor subtypes, a strong predictive effect was observed among HER2-positive tumors (OR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.05-0.73, p = .0152). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the absence of at least a 6-month benefit in terms of PFS with first-line therapy predicts a reduced probability of benefit from subsequent therapeutic lines, especially in HER2-positive disease. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study supports evidence showing that the absence of a 6-month benefit in terms of progression-free survival with first-line therapy predicts a lack of benefit from subsequent therapeutic lines in metastatic breast cancer. The random distribution of benefit experienced by a subset of the cohort further spurs an interest in identifying predictive factors capable of identifying the most appropriate therapeutic strategy.

Mutational Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer Receiving Palbociclib: Results From the TREnd Trial.

PURPOSE: To identify prognostic circulating biomarkers to cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), we performed a mutational analysis on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) samples from patients included in the TREnd trial, which randomly assigned patients to receive the CDK4/6i palbociclib alone or with the endocrine treatment (ET) to which they had progressed. METHODS: Forty-six patients were enrolled in this substudy. Plasma was collected before treatment (T0), after the first cycle of therapy (T1), and at the time of progression (T2). ctDNA hybridization and capture were performed using the Illumina TruSight Tumor 170 Kit. Acquired mutations were confirmed by digital polymerase chain reaction. Progression-free survival analysis was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The most frequently mutated genes at T0 were ESR1 (23%), PIK3CA (17%), AR, FGFR2, and TP53 (10%). Mutations in ESR1 at T0 conferred higher risk of progression in the entire population (P = .02) and in patients treated with palbociclib + ET (P = .04). ESR1 mutation effect remained significant after correction for clinical variables (P = .03). PIK3CA mutations at T0 were not prognostic, but higher risk of progression was observed when a broader analysis of PI3K pathway was performed (P = .04). At T2, we observed the emergence of nine new mutations in seven genes. CONCLUSION: Mutations in ESR1 and in PI3K pathway genes at T0 were associated with worse prognosis in palbociclib-treated patients. We describe the emergence of newly acquired mutations in palbociclib-treated patients, which might potentially affect subsequent treatment.

Sequencing of Checkpoint or BRAF/MEK Inhibitors on Brain Metastases in Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the order of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors or BRAF/MEK inhibitors on the development of brain metastases in patients with metastatic unresectable BRAFV600-mutant melanoma is unknown. The SECOMBIT trial examined the impact of the order of receipt of these treatments in such patients. METHODS: In this three-arm trial, we reviewed patients without brain metastases who received the BRAF/MEK inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib until they had progressive disease followed by the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab (arm A); or treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by encorafenib and binimetinib (arm B); or treatment with encorafenib and binimetinib for 8 weeks followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab until they had progressive disease followed by retreatment with encorafenib arm binimetinib (arm C). RESULTS: Brain metastases were discovered during the trial in 23/69 patients in arm A, 11/69 in arm B, and 9/68 in arm C. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the 60-month brain metastases-free survival rates were 56% for arm A, 80% for arm B (hazard ratio [HR] vs. A: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58), and 85% for arm C (HR vs. A: 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma, the treatment sequence of immune checkpoint inhibition followed by BRAF/MEK inhibitors was associated with longer periods of new brain metastases-free survival than the reverse sequence. A regimen in which immune checkpoint inhibition was sandwiched between BRAF/MEK inhibition also appeared to be protective against brain metastases. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02631447.).

Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic BRAF V600 mutated melanoma: 4-year survival and biomarkers evaluation from the phase II SECOMBIT trial.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy.

Estimating survival in patients with melanoma brain metastases: prognostic value of lactate dehydrogenase.

Patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) have poor prognosis, albeit advances in locoregional and systemic treatments. The melanoma-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) effectively stratifies survival for patients with MBM. Nevertheless, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), a well known prognostic factor for patients with melanoma, is not represented in the GPA scores and might add prognostic information for patients with MBM. In this study, 150 consecutive patients with MBM were retrospectively analyzed with the aim of evaluating independent prognostic factors for MBM patients, including LDH. Furthermore, we implemented a disease-specific prognostic score and estimated survival according to treatment modalities. On the basis of multivariable Cox regression analyses, six prognostic factors (age, BRAF status, number of MBM, number of extracranial metastatic sites, performance status, and LDH level) resulted statistically significant in terms of survival and were combined in a prognostic score to stratify patients in distinct prognostic groups ( P  < 0.0001). Among treatment modalities, a multimodal approach with stereotactic radiosurgery or neurosurgery associated with systemic therapy showed the best outcome (median overall survival: 12.32 months, 95% confidence interval, 7.92-25.30). This is the first study to demonstrate that LDH has independent prognostic value for patients with MBM and might be used to improve prognostic stratification, albeit external validation is mandatory. Survival of patients with MBM is affected by both disease-specific risk factors and treatment modalities, with locoregional treatments associated with better outcomes.

Palbociclib Rechallenge for Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Findings from the Phase II BioPER Trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and exploratory biomarkers of continuing palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) beyond progression on prior palbociclib-based regimen in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The multicenter, open-label, phase II BioPER trial included women who had experienced a progressive disease (PD) after having achieved clinical benefit on the immediately prior palbociclib plus ET regimen. Palbociclib (125 mg, 100 mg, or 75 mg daily orally for 3 weeks and 1 week off as per prior palbociclib-based regimen) plus ET of physician's choice were administered in 4-week cycles until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Coprimary endpoints were clinical benefit rate (CBR) and percentage of tumors with baseline loss of retinoblastoma (Rb) protein expression. Additional endpoints included safety and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Among 33 patients enrolled, CBR was 34.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.6-53.2; P < 0.001] and 13.0% of tumors (95% CI, 5.2-27.5) showed loss of Rb protein expression, meeting both coprimary endpoints. Median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.8-6.7). No new safety signals were reported. A signature that included baseline mediators of therapeutic resistance to palbociclib and ET (low Rb score, high cyclin E1 score, ESR1 mutation) was independently associated with shorter median progression-free survival (HR, 22.0; 95% CI, 1.71-282.9; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining palbociclib after progression on prior palbociclib-based regimen seems to be a reasonable, investigational approach for selected patients. A composite biomarker signature predicts a subset of patients who may not derive a greater benefit from palbociclib rechallenge, warranting further validation in larger randomized controlled trials.

Sequencing of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab and Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib for Untreated BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma (SECOMBIT): A Randomized, Three-Arm, Open-Label Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Limited prospective data are available on sequential immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK inhibition for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma. METHODS: SECOMBIT is a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02631447). Patients with untreated, metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma from 37 sites in nine countries were randomly assigned to arm A (encorafenib [450 mg orally once daily] plus binimetinib [45 mg orally twice daily] until progressive disease [PD] -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab [ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks and nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks × four cycles -> nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks]), arm B [ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib], or arm C (encorafenib plus binimetinib for 8 weeks -> ipilimumab plus nivolumab until PD -> encorafenib plus binimetinib). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 2 years. Secondary end points included total progression-free survival, 3-year OS, best overall response rate, duration of response, and biomarkers in the intent-to-treat population. Safety was analyzed throughout sequential treatment in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were randomly assigned (69 in arm A, 71 in arm B, and 69 in arm C). At a median follow-up of 32.2 (interquartile range, 27.9-41.6) months, median OS was not reached in any arm and more than 30 patients were alive in all arms. Assuming a null hypothesis of median OS of ≤ 15 months, the OS end point was met for all arms. The 2-year and 3-year OS rates were 65% (95% CI, 54 to 76) and 54% (95% CI, 41 to 67) in arm A, 73% (95% CI, 62 to 84) and 62% (95% CI, 48 to 76) in arm B, and 69% (95% CI, 59 to 80) and 60% (95% CI, 58 to 72) in arm C. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSION: Sequential immunotherapy and targeted therapy provide clinically meaningful survival benefits for patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma.

Exploratory predictive and prognostic factors in advanced breast cancer treated with metronomic chemotherapy.

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the clinical and biological factors (including markers of angiogenesis) as potential predictors of prognosis and benefit from metronomic therapy in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Recent data suggest antiangiogenic activity of metronomic therapy. The study population included 62 patients with pretreated ABC who received cyclophosphamide and methotrexate orally. Tumour samples were analysed by immunohistochemistry for HER2, Ki-67, thymidine phosphorylase (TP), vascular endothelial growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. The results from immunohistochemical analysis and clinico-pathological variables were studied to test their potential association with benefit from metronomic therapy. The median overall survival, progression-free survival and survival postprogression were 7.1 (range 0.2-38.3), 2.6 (range 0.2-28.9) and 3 (range 0-34.2) months, respectively. Among the clinical variables, age, performance status and previous therapy with taxanes were significantly associated with outcomes. Among the molecular markers, TP was found to be associated with progression-free survival. Metronomic therapy is an effective choice for ABC. Young women with a more indolent disease had the greatest benefit from this treatment. TP tumour expression might aid decision making but these findings must be confirmed in larger prospective, properly designed studies.

CDK4/6 Inhibitors as Upfront Treatment in a Patient with Breast Cancer Presenting with a Clinical Critic Situation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment algorithm of luminal metastatic breast cancer, becoming the recommended first-line therapy in association with endocrine therapy. However, due to its theoretically greater and more rapid tumor shrinkage, the upfront use of chemotherapy is considered in some clinical situations like visceral crisis. At the state of the art level, a paucity of data is available about the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients presenting with visceral crisis or with life-threatening conditions since this population was historically excluded from clinical trials. In addition, data regarding direct comparison between combinations of chemotherapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors in terms of efficacy, rapidity of responses and long-term outcomes are lacking. We report the case of a 68-year-old woman with luminal metastatic breast cancer presenting at diagnosis with a critical and potentially life-threatening condition. The patient was treated with first-line Abemaciclib plus letrozole and achieved a rapid partial response with sudden clinical stabilization. Although the patient did not technically present with a visceral crisis, this case presentation also endorsed the upfront use of CDK4/6 inhibitor combinations in critical clinical situations in the absence of severe organ dysfunction and after multidisciplinary discussion.

Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Proposal and Final Therapeutic Choice in Early Breast Cancer: Is There an Agreement?

Background: A multidisciplinary team meeting (MDM) approach in breast cancer (BC) management is a standard of care. One of the roles of MDMs is to identify the best diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients (pts) with new diagnosis of early BC. The purpose of this study was to define whether there was an agreement between the planned program (i.e., MDMs-based decision) and that actually applied. In addition, the study explored factors associated with discordance. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive series of 291 patients with new diagnosis of early BC, discussed at MDMs at the University Hospital of Udine (Italy), from January 2017 to June 2018. The association between clinico-biological factors and discordance between what was decided during the MDMs and what was consequently applied by the oncologist was explored through uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: The median age was 62 years (range 27-88 years). Among invasive early BC patients, the most frequent phenotype was luminal A (38%), followed by luminal B (33%), HER2-positive (12%), and triple-negative (5%). In situ carcinoma (DCIS) represented 12% of cases. The median time from MDM discussion to first oncologic examination was 2 weeks. The rate of discordance between MDM-based decision and final choice, during a face-to-face consultation with the oncologist, was 15.8% (46/291). The most frequent reason for changing the MDM-based program was clinical decision (87%). Follow-up was preferred to the chemotherapy (CT) proposed within the MDMs in 15% of cases, and to the endocrine therapy (ET) in 39% of cases (among these, 44.5% had a diagnosis of DCIS). Therapeutic change from sequential CT-ET to ET alone was chosen in 16/46 pts (35%): among these patients, seven had a luminal B disease and six had an HER2-positive disease. On univariate analysis, factors associated with discordance were values of Ki-67 14%-30% (OR 3.91; 95% CI 1.19-12.9), age >70 years (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.28-4.63), housewife/retired status (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.14-4.85), polypharmacy (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.02-3.72), postmenopausal status (OR 4.15; 95% CI 1.58-10.9), and high Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.09-1.57). The association with marital status, educational level, alcohol and smoke habits, presence of a caregiver, parity, grading, histotype and phenotype, and stage was not statistically significant. On multivariate analysis, only Ki-67 value maintained its statistical significance. Conclusion: The results of our study could be useful for enhancing the role of MDMs in the clinical decision-making process in early BC.

CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review.

Historically, metastatic melanoma was considered a highly lethal disease. However, recent advances in drug development have allowed a significative improvement in prognosis. In particular, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD1 antibodies have completely revolutionized the management of this disease. Nonetheless, not all patients derive a benefit or a durable benefit from these therapies. To overtake this challenges, new clinically active compounds are being tested in the context of clinical trials. CDK4/6 inhibitors are drugs already available in clinical practice and preliminary evidence showed a promising activity also in melanoma. Herein we review the available literature to depict a comprehensive landscape about CDK4/6 inhibitors in melanoma. We present the molecular and genetic background that might justify the usage of these drugs, the preclinical evidence, the clinical available data, and the most promising ongoing clinical trials.

Immunotherapy for older patients with melanoma: From darkness to light?

Approximately 40% of malignant melanomas are diagnosed in patients older than 65 years. Elderly patients with melanoma present clinicopathological features related to a more aggressive biology, and they are often diagnosed with advanced stage of disease. Interestingly, in older patients the immune system can be altered with changes both in the innate system and in the adaptive immune system with the acquisition of a pro-inflammatory and immune suppressive phenotype. Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has reshaped the treatment strategies and prognosis of patients with melanoma, and particularly, older age should not be considered a contraindication for immunotherapy. However, data regarding efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in elderly population are still limited because frail older patients are generally excluded from clinical trials. Recently, real-world data have shed light on similar efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in older population compared with younger counterpart. The aim of the present review was to summarize the available knowledge on the underlying immune system in older patients with a diagnosis of melanoma and the immunotherapeutic approaches in this population.

First- and second-line treatment strategies for hormone-receptor (HR)-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine therapy (ET) plus cyclin-dependent-kinases 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) represents the standard treatment for luminal-metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, prospective head-to-head comparisons are still lacking for 1st line (L) options, and it is still crucial to define the best strategy between 1st and 2nd L. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 717 consecutive luminal-MBC pts treated between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed at the Oncology Department of Aviano and Udine, Italy. Differences about survival outcomes (OS, PFS and PPS) were tested by log-rank test. The attrition rate (AR) between 1st and 2ndL was calculated. RESULTS: At 1stL, pts were treated with ET (49%), chemotherapy (CT) (31%) and ET-CDKi (20%) while, at 2ndL, 33% received ET, 33% CT and 8% ET-CDKi. Overall AR was 10%, 7% for CT, 8% for ET and 17% for ET-CDKi. By multivariate analysis, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i showed a better mPFS1 and OS. Moreover, 2ndL ET-CDK4/6i demonstrated better mPFS2 compared to ET and CT. Notably, 1stL ET-CDKi resulted in higher mPFS than 2ndL ET-CDKi. Intriguingly, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i was associated with worse mPPS compared to CT and ET. Secondarily, 1stL ET-CDK4/6i followed by CT had worse OS compared to 1stL ET-CDK4/6i followed by ET. Notably, none of baseline characteristics at 2ndL influenced 2ndL treatment choice (ET vs. CT) after ET-CDKi. CONCLUSION: Our real-world data demonstrated that ET-CDKi represents the best option for 1stL luminal-MBC compared to ET and CT. Also, the present study pointed out that 2ndL ET, potentially combined with other molecules, could be a feasible option after CDK4/6i failure, postponing CT on later lines.

"To Anticipate": Neoadjuvant Therapy in Melanoma with a Focus on Predictive Biomarkers.

Despite surgical resection and adjuvant therapies, stage III melanomas still have a substantial risk of relapse. Neoadjuvant therapy is an emerging strategy that might offer superior efficacy compared to adjuvant therapy. Moreover, neoadjuvant therapy has some virtual advantages: it might allow for less demolitive surgery, permit the in vivo evaluation of drug efficacy, help tailor adjuvant treatments, and play a crucial role in innovative translational research. Herein, we review the available literature to explore the scientific background behind the neoadjuvant approach. We also discuss published clinical trials with a focus on predictive biomarkers and ongoing studies. Finally, we outline a possible framework for future neoadjuvant clinical trial development based on the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium guidelines.