Targeting inflamed and non-inflamed melanomas: biological background and clinical challenges.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated impressive antitumor activity in patients with advanced and early stage melanoma, thus improving long-term survival outcomes. However, most patients derive limited benefit from immunotherapy, due to the development of primary, adaptive, or acquired resistance mechanisms. Immunotherapy resistance is a complex phenomenon that depends on genetic and epigenetic mechanisms which, in turn, drive the interplay between cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME). Immunologically "cold" (i.e. non-inflamed) tumors lack or have few tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as a result of low tumor mutational burden (TMB), defective antigen presentation, or physical barriers to lymphocyte migration, resulting in a minimal benefit from immunotherapy. In contrast, in most cases immunologically "hot" (i.e. inflamed) tumors display high TMB, implying a higher load of neoantigens and increased programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, with a consequently higher rate of TILs. However, the presence of TILs does not necessarily denote the tumor as immunologically "hot", since the presence of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells persistently exposed to antigenic stimulation induces a dysfunctional state called "exhaustion", which leads to a reduced response to immunotherapy. In recent years, efforts have been made to characterize mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy, and to investigate strategies to overcome treatment resistance. Indeed, predictors of response and toxicity to immunotherapy are still lacking and, to date, there are no reliable predictive biomarkers to select patients according to baseline clinical, histological, or genomic characteristics. In this review, we will focus on the morphologic and immunohistochemical characteristics of the TME, and on the molecular determinants of resistance to immunotherapy, differentiating between inflamed and non-inflamed melanomas. Then, we will provide a thorough overview of preclinical data on genetic and epigenetic mechanisms with a potential impact on the immune response and patient outcome. Finally, we will focus our attention on the role of potential biomarkers in determining disease response to immunotherapy, in the adjuvant and metastatic setting, providing an insight into current and future research in this field.

BRAFV600 variant allele frequency predicts outcome in metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of variant allele frequency (VAF) on clinical outcome in BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma patients (MMPs) receiving BRAF (BRAFi) and MEK inhibitors (MEKi) is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of MMPs receiving first line BRAFi and MEKi was identified by inspecting dedicated databases of three Italian Melanoma Intergroup centres. VAF was determined by next generation sequencing in pre-treatment baseline tissue samples. Correlation between VAF and BRAF copy number variation was analysed in an ancillary study by using a training and a validation cohort of melanoma tissue samples and cell lines. RESULTS: Overall, 107 MMPs were included in the study. The VAF cut-off determined by ROC curve was 41.3%. At multivariate analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly shorter in patients with M1c/M1d [HR 2.25 (95% CI 1.41-3.6, p < 0.01)], in those with VAF >41.3% [HR 1.62 (95% CI 1.04-2.54, p < 0.05)] and in those with ECOG PS ≥1 [HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.15-2.88, p < 0.05)]. Overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter in patients with M1c/M1d [HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.25-3.25, p < 0.01)]. Furthermore, OS was shorter in patients with VAF >41.3% [HR 1.46 (95% CI 0.93-2.29, p = 0.06)] and in patients with ECOG PS ≥1 [HR 1.52 (95% CI 0.94-2.87, p = 0.14)]. BRAF gene amplification was found in 11% and 7% of samples in the training and validation cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High VAF is an independent poor prognostic factor in MMP receiving BRAFi and MEKi. High VAF and BRAF amplification coexist in 7%-11% of patients.

Molecular Profiling and Novel Therapeutic Strategies for Mucosal Melanoma: A Comprehensive Review.

Mucosal melanoma is a rare and aggressive subtype of melanoma. Unlike its cutaneous counterpart, mucosal melanoma has only gained limited benefit from novel treatment approaches due to the lack of actionable driver mutations and poor response to immunotherapy. Over the last years, whole-genome and exome sequencing techniques have led to increased knowledge on the molecular landscape of mucosal melanoma. Molecular studies have underlined noteworthy findings with potential therapeutic implications, including the presence of KIT mutations, which are potential targets of tyrosine kinase inhibitors currently in use in the clinic (imatinib), but also SF3B1 mutation, CDK4 amplifications, and CDKN2A gene deletions, which are presently under investigation in clinical trials. Recent results from a pooled analysis of patients with mucosal melanoma treated with immunotherapy have suggested that the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors might improve survival outcomes in this subset of patients, as compared with single-agent immunotherapy. However, these results are not confirmed across different studies, and combo-immunotherapy correlates with a higher rate of adverse events. In this review, we describe the clinical, biological, and genetic features of mucosal melanoma. We also provide an update on the results of approved systemic treatment in this setting and overview the therapeutic strategies currently under investigation in clinical trials.

Immunotherapy in Underrepresented Populations of Patients with Cancer: Do We Have Enough Evidence at Present? A Focus on Patients with Major Viral Infections and Autoimmune Disorders.

The safety and activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors have been characterized in interventional and observational studies. However, only small studies have specifically investigated these agents in patients who are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials, frequently referred to as "special populations" or "underrepresented populations." These include older adults, those with dysregulated immune activation, patients with a compromised immune function, and those carrying major viral infections, lymphoproliferative diseases, and major organ dysfunctions. Therefore, there remains substantial uncertainty regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in these specific settings. The Network of Italian Supportive Care in Oncology has carried out a multidisciplinary project, with the contribution of oncologists and other specialists, to retrieve the existing evidence on the use of immunotherapy in patients with solid and hematological cancers with the final aim to provide an expert guidance. The results of this effort are presented in this article, which is focused on patients with major viral infections or those with immune dysregulation/autoimmune diseases, and could be useful to guide decisions in clinical practice and to design prospective clinical trials focusing on the use of immunotherapy in these populations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Substantial uncertainty remains regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in "underrepresented" patients, such as older adults, those with dysregulated immune activation, and patients with a compromised immune function, major viral infections, lymphoproliferative diseases or major organ dysfunctions. The Network of Italian Supportive Care in Oncology has carried out a multidisciplinary project to retrieve the existing evidence on the use of immunotherapy in underrepresented patients with cancer in order provide an expert guidance. The results of this effort, with a focus on patients with major viral infections or those with immune dysregulation/autoimmune diseases, are presented in this article and could be useful to guide decisions both in clinical practice and to design clinical trials.

Impact of performance status on non-small-cell lung cancer patients with a PD-L1 tumour proportion score ≥50% treated with front-line pembrolizumab.

Objectives: We retrospectively analysed patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring high PD-L1 expression (>50%) and treated with front-line pembrolizumab, comparing outcomes of patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2 to those with PS 0-1.Methods: Data were collected by 16 participating centres. All patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1, treated with first-line pembrolizumab were included. We collected medical data from patient files, pathology and laboratory reports. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, PS, and tumour characteristics were reported. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) were calculated.Results: 302 patients were included, 246 with PS 0-1, 56 with PS 2. RR was 72% among patients with PS 0-1 compared to 45% with PS2 (odds ratio (OR) 0.31 (95% CI: 0.17-0.57), p < .001). Median PFS was 2.6 months (95% CI: 1.9-5.1) among patients with PS2 and 11.3 months (95% CI: 8.5-14.4) among those with PS 0-1. Median OS was 7.8 months (95% CI: 2.5-10.7) in the PS2 group, not reached in the PS 0-1 group. PS 2 remained predictive of poor outcomes in multivariate analysis.Conclusion: PS 2 is a strong independent predictor of poor response and survival in NSCLC patients with high PD-L1, treated with front-line pembrolizumab. Prospective randomised trials comparing immunotherapy to chemotherapy in this population would be welcome.

Supportive care in cancer-a MASCC perspective.

The term 'supportive care' arose from the medical oncology literature predominantly in the context of managing the toxicities of cancer treatment but embraces all symptom management through treatment and survivorship. Supportive care should be patient-centred with good communication which includes family and carers and applies across the cancer experience from diagnosis, treatment, survivorship to end of life care. Supportive care encompasses physical and functional, psychological, social and spiritual well-being to improve the quality of life. Supportive care must be evidence-based and thus further research is essential. Supportive care requires screening for some symptoms and tools for patients to report their outcomes. Supportive care has to accommodate new physical toxicities, emotional distress as well as financial toxicity. Supportive care is often delivered by medical oncologists but any organ-related specialist, geriatrician, palliative care clinician, pain specialist, nutritionist, psycho-oncologist, social worker, physiotherapist, nurse or allied health worker who is required to relieve a patient's symptoms or side effects may be involved in a multidisciplinary way. The field is evolving to embrace technology such as eHealth and mHealth capabilities which will enhance integrated care.

Prevalence, characteristics, and treatment of fatigue in oncological cancer patients in Italy: a cross-sectional study of the Italian Network for Supportive Care in Cancer (NICSO).

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is one of the most distressing symptoms of cancer patients. Its characteristics and impact on quality of life have not been fully explored and treatment of cancer-related fatigue in Italian oncological centers has not been codified. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out on all patients attending for any reason the 24 participating centers in two non-consecutive days. Patients with fatigue filled out the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) questionnaire and reported any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment for fatigue. RESULTS: From October 2014 to May 2015, 1394 cancer patients agreed to participate in the study. Fatigue was referred by 866 (62.1%) of patients; its duration was > 4 months in 441 patients (50.9%). In the investigators' opinion, the most important (probable or almost sure) determinants of fatigue were reduced physical activity (271 patients), anxiety (149), pain (131), insomnia (125), anemia (123), and depression (123). Fatigue of moderate/severe intensity was reported by 43%/29.2% of patients, while usual fatigue in the last 24 h by 45%/33.1%, and the worst fatigue in the last 24 h by 33%/54.8%, respectively. Concerning the impact on quality of life, fatigue interfered moderately/severely with general activity in 30.8%/38.6% of patients, with mood in 26.1%/32.8%, with the ability to work in 27.9%/35.6%, with normal work in 26.7%/38.9%, with relationships with others in 21%/23.4% and with the ability to amuse themselves in 22.2%/33.1%. Only 117/866 patients (13.5%) received a pharmacological treatment represented by a corticosteroid in 101 patients (86.3%) while 188 patients (21.7%) received a non-pharmacological treatment such as physical exercise (120 patients, 63.8%) and various alimentary supplements (52 patients, 27.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer-related fatigue is frequently reported by oncological patients; its intensity and impact on quality of life is relevant.

Fatigue, a major still underestimated issue.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a frequent and distressing symptom present at any stage of the disease. However, it is still underreported, rarely properly assessed and undertreated. RECENT FINDINGS: There are international guidelines available, but also several barriers to their implementation into clinical practice. SUMMARY: According to guidelines, all patients should be clinically screened for CRF on regular basis, at the initial cancer visit and at intervals during every clinic visit, also at posttreatment follow-up visits. Generally, any treatable contributing factors should be identified and possibly treated. After the concomitant factors have been improved or removed, pharmacological and or nonpharmacological treatments of CRF can be considered.Further research is needed to better understand the causes, the better treatments, the easier assessment tool for CRF for clinical practice and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing CRF guidelines.

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.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are distressing symptoms. Evidence-based guidelines should facilitate the prescription of the best possible antiemetic prophylaxis. As part of the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update 2016, a thorough review of the literature concerning RINV since the 2009 update was required. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including data published from June 2009 to May 2015 was performed. Committee VII (RINV) under the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update Committee assessed the literature. RESULTS: The searches yielded 926 records, 906 records were excluded, leaving 20 records for full text assessment, and 18 publications were finally included. The only fully published randomized studies in prevention of RINV were two negative studies in acupuncture and green tea, respectively. No data to support new recommendations for antiemetic prophylaxis in RINV was available. However, based on expert opinions, the committee agreed on changes in emetic risk level for certain sites of irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: The serotonin receptor antagonists are still the corner stone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The studies available since the last update did not change recommendations for antiemetic prophylaxis. The emetogenicity of craniospinal radiotherapy was reclassified from low to moderate emetic level along with some other minor changes. In the future, RINV prophylaxis in single fraction, multiple fraction, and in concomitant chemo-radiotherapy still need to be explored with regard to the different classes and combinations of antiemetic drugs.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included. CONCLUSIONS: In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Following High Emetic Risk Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the recommendations for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) which includes cisplatin, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, cyclophosphamide >1500 mg/m2, carmustine, dacarbazine, and the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) administered to women with breast cancer, as agreed at the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update meeting in Copenhagen in June 2015. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the Cochrane Database from 2009 to June 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The NK1-receptor antagonists netupitant (300 mg given in combination with palonosetron 0.5 mg as NEPA) and rolapitant have both completed phase II and III programs and were approved by FDA (both) and EMA (NEPA) in 2014-2015. Addition of one of these agents (or of (fos)aprepitant) to a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved the number of patients with a complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) days 1-5 after AC HEC with 8-9 % and after non-AC HEC by 8-20 %. Olanzapine has improved control of delayed nausea as compared to aprepitant in a randomized open designed study. In the prophylaxis of delayed nausea and vomiting, metoclopramide is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy and dexamethasone is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving AC chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two new NK1-receptor antagonists (netupitant and rolapitant) have been included in the updated recommendations as additional options to aprepitant or fosaprepitant. Addition of one of these NK1-receptor antagonists to a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in both non-AC HEC and AC HEC. Olanzapine is included as an option in HEC in particular if nausea is the main symptom.

[Cancer-related fatigue]. / La fatigue cancro-correlata.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a very common and distressing symptom experienced by most cancer patients, during and after treatments and also at the end of life. There is no accepted definition of CRF, because it is a multifaceted symptom that involves multiple biopsychosocial aspects. Several scales for assessing CRF have been used, unidimensional or multidimensional, but there is no agreement regarding the best instrument to measure CRF. Concerning the CRF treatment, pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions have been used. Pharmacologic therapies have been evaluated in few randomized clinical trials: corticosteroids demonstrated a superior efficacy to the placebo in terminal cancer patients; psychostimulants (methylfenidate, dexamphetamine, modafinil), antidepressant (paroxetine), acetilcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil), l-carnitine and coenzyme Q(10) generally have reported negative results. Non-pharmacologic interventions (physical exercise, psychosocial interventions and other integrative interventions, such as yoga, ginseng, acupuncture) have been evaluated in several randomized and non-randomized studies, but with many methodological limitations. Therefore, the most effective non-pharmacological intervention remains unclear and the effect sizes are small. Further research is needed to delineate the optimal definition, measurement and treatment of CRF.

Repotrectinib's Clinical Benefit and Its Brain Penetration in a Patient with Meningeal Carcinomatosis from G2032R-Mutated ROS-1 Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

In this work, we report on a clinically significant response of meningeal carcinomatosis to repotrectinib in a woman with a heavily pretreated ROS1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that harbored the concomitant solvent front G2032R mutation. Meningeal carcinomatosis has a higher incidence in oncogene addicted NSCLC due to increased life expectancy, yet no report has ever documented the activity of repotrectinib in this context. In line with its activity, we documented the presence of the drug at potentially active concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid. Nevertheless, the short-lived response reported by our patient highlights the importance for novel ROS1-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to be specifically developed to be able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

Lorlatinib beyond progression plus platinum/pemetrexed for ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer patients: report of two cases.

Lorlatinib is an active treatment for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pretreated with ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (-TKIs). However, there is paucity of data on the activity of platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy administered at the time of progression on lorlatinib. In addition, it is uncertain whether continuation of lorlatinib beyond progression (LBP) would provide any additional clinical benefit. Here, we describe two cases experiencing an exceptional response to platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy plus LBP and make an attempt to identify which patients' characteristics and biologic profiles of the tumor could predict benefit from such an approach. In this report, presence of controlled brain metastases, rapidly progressing extracranial disease, and presence of ALK-dependent mechanisms of resistance were associated with benefit from platinum/pemetrexed chemotherapy plus lorlatinib beyond progression.

Optimizing the risk stratification of astrocytic tumors by applying the cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 signature: real-word single center experience.

Our work reports implementation of a useful genetic diagnosis for the clinical managment of patients with astrocytic tumors. We investigated 313 prospectively recruited diffuse astrocytic tumours by applying the cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 signature. The cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 (cIMPACT-NOW 3) markers, i.e., alterations of TERT promoter, EGFR, and/or chromosome 7 and 10, characterized 96.4% of IDHwt cases. Interestingly, it was also found in 48,5% of IDHmut cases. According to the genomic profile, four genetic subgroups could be distinguished: (1) IDwt/cIMPACT-NOW 3 (n = 270); (2) IDHwt/cIMPACT-NOW 3 negative (= 10); (3) IDHmut/cIMPACT-NOW 3 (n = 16); and 4) IDHmut/cIMPACT-NOW 3 negative (n = 17). Multivariate analysis confirmed that IDH1/2 mutations confer a favorable prognosis (IDHwt, HR 2.91 95% CI 1.39-6.06), and validated the prognostic value of the cIMPACT-NOW 3 signature (cIMPACT-NOW 3, HR 2.15 95% CI 1.15-4.03). To accurately identify relevant prognostic categories, overcoming the limitations of histopathology and immunohistochemistry, molecular-cytogenetic analyses must be fully integrated into the diagnostic work-up of astrocytic tumors.

ICH in primary or metastatic brain cancer patients with or without anticoagulant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anticoagulant treatment in patients with primary and metastatic brain cancer is a concern due to risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of ICH in patients with primary or metastatic brain cancer treated with or without anticoagulants. Articles on ICH in patients with primary or metastatic brain cancer treated with or without anticoagulants published up to September 2021 were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcome of this analysis was ICH. Thirty studies were included. Rate of ICH was 13.0% in 1009 patients with metastatic brain cancer and 6.4% in 2353 patients with primary brain cancer (relative risk [RR], 3.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69-3.94; I2 = 92.8%). In patients with primary brain cancer, ICH occurred in 12.5% and 4.4% of patients treated with or without anticoagulants, respectively (11 studies, 659 treated and 1346 not treated patients; RR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.48-4.67; I2 = 49.6%). In patients with metastatic brain cancer, ICH occurred in 14.7% and 15.4% (5 studies, 265 treated and 301 not treated patients; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.43-1.93; I2 = 0%). ICH occurred in 8.3% of 172 treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and in 11.7% of 278 treated with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (5 studies; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.79; I2 = 0%). Patients with metastatic brain cancer have a particularly high risk of ICH. Patients with primary brain cancer have an increased risk of ICH during anticoagulation. DOACs are associated with a lower risk of ICH than LMWH.

Inflamed Tumor Phenotype as Predictor of Long-Term Response to Pembrolizumab in an EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patient with Acquired Resistance to Afatinib: a Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that target the programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) axis is usually ineffective in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as first-line treatment or in later lines. By contrast, especially for patients with common EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion/L858R point mutation), an orally bioavailable EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) is the best upfront therapy, being able to provide response rates well above 50% and a median progression-free survival ranging from 11 to 19 months, depending on whether a second-generation (e.g., afatinib) or a third-generation (i.e., osimertinib) EGFR-TKI is used. Unfortunately, treatment options for these patients at the time of acquired resistance are limited. As for afatinib-pretreated patients, those who develop a T790M mutation may benefit from osimertinib, whereas platinum-based chemotherapy is the preferable therapeutic strategy for T790M-negative patients as well as for patients who progress on osimertinib administered as first-line therapy. Here, we describe the case of an exon-19-deleted patient who experienced a complete response to the anti-PD-1 agent pembrolizumab upon the development of T790M-negative acquired resistance to afatinib. Furthermore, we discuss this case in the context of the existing literature, especially focusing on the importance of evaluating multiple markers of immune response post-EGFR-TKI and prior to ICI treatment in order to select the best treatment strategy in this clinical scenario.

Effectiveness of a phone-based nurse monitoring assessment and intervention for chemotherapy-related toxicity: A randomized multicenter trial.

Purpose: Anticancer treatment-related toxicities can impact morbidity and mortality, hamper the administration of treatment, worsen the quality of life and increase the burden on the healthcare system. Therefore, their prompt identification is crucial. NICSO (Italian Network for Supportive Care in Cancer) conducted a nationwide randomized trial to evaluate the role of a planned, weekly phone-based nurse monitoring intervention to prevent and treat chemotherapy, targeted therapy- and immunotherapy-related toxicities. Here, we report the results from the chemotherapy arm. Methods: This was a nationwide, randomized, open-label trial conducted among 29 Italian centers (NCT04726020) involving adult patients with breast, colon, or lung cancer and a life expectancy ≥6 months receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received either a weekly nurse monitoring phone call and an educational leaflet reporting practical advice about prevention and treatment of toxicities (experimental group) or the educational leaflet only (control group). Results: The addition of a nurse monitoring intervention may help reduce time spent with severe toxicities (grade ≥3), particularly those less frequently reported in clinical practice, such as fatigue. When considering grade 1-2 AEs, times with mild/moderate diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue and pain were shorter in the experimental arm. Time spent without AEs was significantly longer in the experimental arms for all the toxicities. The requirement for special medical attention was comparable between groups. Conclusion: This study suggests the need for implementing a better system of toxicity assessment and management for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy to promote effective preventive and/or therapeutic intervention against these events.