Application of the NSE score (Neurology-Stability-Epidural compression assessment) to establish the need for surgery in spinal metastases of elderly patients: a multicenter investigation.

PURPOSE: This retropective multicentric study aims to investigate the clinical applicability of the NSE score in the elderly, to verify the role of this tool as an easy help for decision making also for this class of patients. METHODS: All elderly patients (> 65 years) suffering from spinal metastases undergoing surgical or non-surgical treatment at the authors' Institutions between 2015 and 2022 were recruited. An agreement group (AG) and non-agreement group (NAG) were identified accordingly to the agreement between the NSE score indication and the performed treatment. Neurological status and axial pain were evaluated for both groups at follow-up (3 and 6 months). The same analysis was conducted specifically grouping patients older than 75 years. RESULTS: A strong association with improvement or preservation of clinical status (p < 0.001) at follow-up was obtained in AG. The association was not statistically significant in NAG at the 3-month follow-up (p 1.00 and 0.07 respectively) and at 6 months (p 0.293 and 0.09 respectively). The group of patients over 75 years old showed similar results in terms of statistical association between the agreement group and better outcomes. CONCLUSION: Far from the need or the aim to build dogmatic algorithms, the goal of preserving a proper performance status plays a key role in a modern oncological management: functional outcomes of the multicentric study group showed that the NSE score represents a reliable tool to establish the need for surgery also for elderly patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials assessing PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors activity in pre-treated advanced stage malignant mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: Advanced stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM) patients have poor prognosis. Several trials investigated the role of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and its ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in pre-treated asMM. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of clinical trials testing single-agent anti PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs in pre-treated asMM was performed. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data were extracted. The predictive role of PD-L1 was assessed. RESULTS: We selected 13 studies including 888 patients. ORR and DCR were 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.9-22.8%) and 55.4% (95% CI: 48.1-62.5%), respectively. Median PFS and OS ranged from 2.1 to 5.9 and from 6.7 to 20.9 months, respectively. ORR according to PD-L1 was 27.0% (95% CI: 18.7-36.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-PD-(L)1 ICIs might be considered a treatment option for chemotherapy-resistant asMM, even if reliable predictive factors are still lacking.

Impact of adoption of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice on the accuracy of symptom reporting in medical records of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Medical records are a relevant source for real-world evidence. We introduced patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice, demonstrating a significant quality-of-life improvement, compared to usual visit. In this secondary analysis, we describe the agreement between patients' and physicians' reports of 5 symptoms. Our hypothesis was that adoption of PROs questionnaire could significantly improve the agreement. METHODS: Eligible patients were receiving active anti-cancer treatment. Patients in the control group underwent usual visits (group A), while patients of group B, before each visit, filled a PROs paper questionnaire, to provide information about symptoms and toxicities. No specific instructions were provided to physicians to integrate such information in medical records. Agreement between patient and physician evaluations was assessed by Cohen's κ, calculating under-reporting as proportion of toxicities reported by patients but not recorded by physicians. RESULTS: 211 patients (412 visits) have been analyzed. For all symptoms, Cohen's κ was better for group B: emesis (0.25 group A vs. 0.36 group B), diarrhea (0.16 vs. 0.57), constipation (0.07 vs. 0.28), pain (0.22 vs. 0.42), fatigue (0.03 vs. 0.08). For all symptoms, although under-reporting was relevant in both groups, it was lower for group B: emesis (75.49% vs. 60.0%, p=0.031), diarrhea (82.89% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001), constipation (92.11% vs. 69.57%, p<0.001), pain (59.57% vs. 42.31%, p=0.01), fatigue (82.11% vs. 64.10%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Adoption of paper PROs allowed a significant reduction in under-reporting of symptoms, but agreement remained suboptimal. Direct integration of electronic PROs could minimize the issue of under-reporting of medical records, increasing their accuracy.

Ramucirumab, A Second-Line Option For Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review Of The Evidence.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most frequent primary liver cancer and predominantly develops in patients with liver cirrhosis. In patients with advanced disease, such as extra-hepatic extension or portal vein involvement, and with intermediate disease unsuitable for locoregional therapies, systemic therapy is recommended, if liver function and performance status are adequate. Following a decade of negative Phase III trials since the approval of sorafenib, more recently several drugs have proven efficacy both in first line versus sorafenib (lenvatinib) or in second line versus placebo (regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab). In this review, we summarize the preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the use of ramucirumab, a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), in HCC. Following the results of the REACH trial, that was negative in the overall study population but identified a subgroup that could benefit from ramucirumab treatment, the REACH-2 trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, designed to assess ramucirumab as second line in patients with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL. The results of REACH-2 were published in February 2019, leading to Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approval of the drug as second-line agent for advanced HCC (after sorafenib) in patients with AFP ≥400 ng/mL. For the first time in the history of systemic treatments for HCC, a predictive factor of efficacy was identified. In this review, we also discuss the potential clinical development of systemic treatments in HCC, focusing on combination therapies with immunotherapy (following the recent results of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in the IMbrave 150 clinical trial) and treatment sequences as a way to maximize survival benefit.

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 influenza syndrome and flu vaccine on survival of cancer patients during immunotherapy in the INVIDIa study.

Aim: INVIDIa was a retrospective, multicenter study, exploring the clinical efficacy of influenza vaccine in 300 cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy. Overall survival (OS) was immature at the initial report. Methods: We reported the final OS analysis from the original study population and within subgroups. Results: Both at the univariate and multivariate analysis, the occurrence of influenza syndrome (IS) was significantly related to better OS in the overall population (OR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.32-0.88]; p = 0.01). In the lung cancer subgroup, receiving flu vaccine and/or developing IS was related to better OS (p = 0.04). Within elderly patients, the flu vaccine was the main variable for the relative OS advantage (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Receiving the flu vaccine and/or developing IS was related to better OS within the INVIDIa population.

Quality of life assessment and reporting in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018.

BACKGROUND: In this study, our aim was to describe quality of life (QoL) prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in colorectal cancer phase III trials. METHODS: We included all phase III trials evaluating anticancer drugs in colorectal cancer patients published between 2012 and 2018 by 11 major journals. RESULTS: Out of the 67 publications identified, in 41 (61.2 %) QoL was not listed among endpoints. Out of 26 primary publications of trials including QoL among endpoints, QoL results were not reported in 10 (38.5 %). Overall, no QoL data were available in 51/67 (76.1 %) primary publications. In particular, in the metastatic setting, QoL data were not available in 12/18 (66.7 %) trials with primary endpoint overall survival, and in 20/29 (69.0 %) trials with other primary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: QoL was absent in a high proportion of recently published phase III trials in colorectal cancer, even in trials of second or further lines, where attention to QoL should be particularly high.

Quality of life analysis in lung cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018.

OBJECTIVES: We previously reported that quality of life (QoL) is not included among trial endpoints and QoL results are underreported in a significant proportion of phase III oncology trials. Here we describe QoL adoption, reporting and methodology of QoL analysis in lung cancer trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected all primary publications of lung cancer phase III trials assessing anticancer drugs published between 2012 and 2018 by 11 major journals. RESULTS: 122 publications were included. In 39 (32.0%) publications, QoL was not listed among endpoints: in 10/17 (58.8%) early stage/locally advanced NSCLC, in 15/54 (27.8%) first-line of advanced NSCLC; in 10/41 (24.4%) second and further lines of advanced NSCLC, in 4/10 (40.0%) SCLC. Proportion of trials not including QoL was similar over time: 32.9% publications in 2012-2015 vs. 30.6% in 2016-2018. Out of 83 trials including QoL among endpoints, QoL results were absent in 36 primary publications (43.4%). Proportion of trials without QoL results in primary publication increased over time (30.6% 2012-2015 vs. 61.8% 2016-2018, p = 0.005). Overall, QoL data were not available in 75/122 (61.5%) primary publications, due to the absent endpoint or unpublished results. QoL data were lacking in 48/68 (70.6%) publications of trials with overall survival as primary endpoint, 27/54 (50.0%) with other primary endpoints and 28/54 (51.9%) publications with a positive result. For trials including QoL among endpoints but lacking QoL results in primary publication, probability of secondary publication was 6.3%, 30.1% and 49.8% after 1, 2 and 3 years respectively, without evidence of improvement comparing 2012-2015 vs. 2016-2018. CONCLUSION: QoL is not assessed or published in many phase III lung cancer trials, a setting where QoL value should be highly considered, due to high symptom burden and generally limited life expectancy. Timely inclusion of results in primary publications is worsening in recent years.

Validated Nomogram Predicting 6-Month Survival in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Receiving First-Line 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan.

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is an option for fit patients with metastatic (MPC) and locally advanced unresectable (LAPC) pancreatic cancer. However, no criteria reliably identify patients with better outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated putative prognostic factors among 137 MPC/LAPC patients treated with triplet chemotherapy. Association with 6-month survival status (primary endpoint) was assessed by multivariate logistic regression models. A nomogram predicting the risk of death at 6 months was built by assigning a numeric score to each identified variable, weighted on its level of association with survival. External validation was performed in an independent data set of 206 patients. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03590275). RESULTS: Four variables (performance status, liver metastases, baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio) were found to be associated with 6-month survival by multivariate analysis or had sufficient clinical plausibility to be included in the nomogram. Accuracy was confirmed in the validation cohort (C index = 0.762; 95% confidence interval, 0.713-0.825). After grouping all cases, 4 subsets with different outcomes were identified by 0, 1, 2, or > 2 poor prognostic features (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The nomogram we constructed accurately predicts the risk of death in the first 6 months after initiation of FOLFIRINOX in MPC/LAPC patients. This tool could be useful to guide communication about prognosis, and to inform the design and interpretation of clinical trials.

Quality-of-Life Assessment and Reporting in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review of Phase 3 Trials Testing Anticancer Drugs Published Between 2012 and 2018.

Quality of life (QoL) is not included among the end points in many studies, and QoL results are underreported in many phase 3 oncology trials. We performed a systematic review to describe QoL prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in recently published prostate cancer phase 3 trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in prostate cancer, issued between 2012 and 2018. We analyzed QoL inclusion among end points, presence of QoL results, and methodology of QoL analysis. Seventy-two publications were identified (15 early-stage, 20 advanced hormone-sensitive, and 37 castration-resistant prostate cancer [CRPC]). QoL was not listed among study end points in 23 studies (31.9%) (40.0% early stage, 40.0% advanced hormone sensitive, and 24.3% CRPC). QoL results were absent in 15 (30.6%) of 49 primary publications of trials that included QoL among end points. Overall, as a result of absent end point or unpublished results, QoL data were lacking in 38 (52.8%) primary publications (53.3% early stage, 55.0% in advanced hormone sensitive, and 51.4% in CRPC). The most commonly used QoL tools were Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) (21, 53.8%) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (14, 35.9%); most common methods of analysis were mean changes or mean scores (28, 71.8%), time to deterioration (14, 35.9%), and proportion of patients with response (10, 25.6%). In conclusion, QoL data are lacking in a not negligible proportion of recently published phase 3 trials in prostate cancer, although the presence of QoL results is better in positive trials, especially in CRPC. The methodology of QoL analysis is heterogeneous for type of instruments, analysis, and presentation of results.

A validated prognostic classifier for V600EBRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer: the 'BRAF BeCool' study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-known negative prognostic value of the V600EBRAF mutation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), its outcome is quite heterogeneous, and the basis for this prognostic heterogeneity should be better defined. METHODS: Two large retrospective series of V600EBRAF-mutated mCRC from 22 institutions served as an exploratory and validation set to develop a prognostic score. The model was internally and externally validated. RESULTS: A total of 395 V600EBRAF-mutated mCRCs were included in the exploratory set. Performance status, CA19.9, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, grading and liver, lung and nodal involvement emerged as independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). Two different scoring systems were built: a 'complete' score (0-16) including all significant covariates and a 'simplified' score (0-9), based only on clinicopathological covariates, and excluding laboratory values. Adopting the complete score, proportions of patients with a low (0-4), intermediate (5-8) and high (9-16) score were 44.7%, 42.6% and 12.6%, respectively. The median OS was 29.6, 15.5 (hazard ratio [HR] for intermediate vs low risk: 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.44-3.22, p < .001) and 6.6 months (HR for high vs low risk: 4.72, 95% CI: 2.72-8.20, p < .001). Similar results were observed also after adjusting for the type of first-line treatment and adopting the simplified score. The simplified prognostic score derived from the exploratory set was then applied to the validation set for external confirmation. CONCLUSIONS: These scoring systems are based on easy-to-collect data and defined specific subgroups with relevant differences in their life expectancy. These tools could be useful in clinical practice, would allow better stratification of patients in clinical trials and may be adopted for proper adjustments in exploratory translational analyses.

The role of patient-reported outcomes in outpatients receiving active anti-cancer treatment: impact on patients' quality of life.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to describe subjective symptoms. Nurses can be successfully involved in collecting symptom information, because of their direct relationship with the patient. In order to improve clinical management of outpatients receiving active anti-cancer treatment, we introduced in routine clinical practice an assessment of patient-reported symptoms and toxicities, starting from January 2018. Our hypothesis was that this could help to better control symptoms, improving patients' quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Eligible patients were receiving an active anti-cancer treatment, as outpatients. Patients included in the control group (treated in 2017) underwent "usual" visits (group A), while patients treated in 2018, before each visit received a questionnaire by a dedicated nurse, in order to provide information about symptoms and toxicities (group B). Primary objective was the comparison of QoL changes, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients have been analyzed (119 group A; 92 group B). After 1 month, mean change from baseline of global QoL was - 1.68 in group A and + 2.54 in group B (p = 0.004, effect size 0.20). Group B showed significantly better mean changes for fatigue, pain, and appetite loss. Proportion of patients obtaining a clinically significant improvement in global QoL score was higher in group B (32.6%) compared to group A (19.3%, p = 0.04). Patients' satisfaction with questionnaire was high. CONCLUSION: Introduction of PROs in clinical practice, thanks to an active role of nurses, was feasible, produced high patients' satisfaction and a significant QoL improvement, compared to the traditional modality of visit.

INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors: a transversal challenge. The INVIDIa study.

AIM: Considering the unmet need for the counseling of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CKI) about influenza vaccination, an explorative study was planned to assess flu vaccine efficacy in this population. METHODS: INVIDIa was a retrospective, multicenter study, enrolling consecutive advanced cancer outpatients receiving CKI during the influenza season 2016-2017. RESULTS: Of 300 patients, 79 received flu vaccine. The incidence of influenza syndrome was 24.1% among vaccinated, versus 11.8% of controls; odds ratio: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.23-4.59; p = 0.009. The clinical ineffectiveness of vaccine was more pronounced among elderly: 37.8% among vaccinated patients, versus 6.1% of unvaccinated, odds ratio: 9.28; 95% CI: 2.77-31.14; p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: Although influenza vaccine may be clinically ineffective in advanced cancer patients receiving CKI, it seems not to negatively impact the efficacy of anticancer therapy.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Immunotherapy represents a new hope for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, to date, only one of two randomized studies showed a clear survival advantage with these treatments. Aimed to investigate the role of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in patients with platinum progressed metastatic UC we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and activity, in terms of Overall Survival (OS) and Objective Response Rate (ORR). Immune checkpoint inhibitors have showed to improve OS compared to chemotherapy in unselected patients (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93, p = 0.003), while the difference was not significant in patients selected for PD-L1 expression (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48-1.09, p = 0.12). Pooled probability of response was 0.18 (95% CI 0.16-0.20) in unselected patients and 0.27 (95% CI 0.25-0.32) in PD-L1 selected patients. Immunotherapy results in a significant survival advantage in PD-L1 unselected patients suggesting that PD-L1 expression may not be a reliable marker in previously platinum treated patients.

YAP-Dependent AXL Overexpression Mediates Resistance to EGFR Inhibitors in NSCLC.

The Yes-associated protein (YAP) is a transcriptional co-activator upregulating genes that promote cell growth and inhibit apoptosis. The main dysregulation of the Hippo pathway in tumors is due to YAP overexpression, promoting epithelial to mesenchymal transition, cell transformation, and increased metastatic ability. Moreover, it has recently been shown that YAP plays a role in sustaining resistance to targeted therapies as well. In our work, we evaluated the role of YAP in acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer. In EGFR-addicted lung cancer cell lines (HCC4006 and HCC827) rendered resistant to several EGFR inhibitors, we observed that resistance was associated to YAP activation. Indeed, YAP silencing impaired the maintenance of resistance, while YAP overexpression decreased the responsiveness to EGFR inhibitors in sensitive parental cells. In our models, we identified the AXL tyrosine kinase receptor as the main YAP downstream effector responsible for sustaining YAP-driven resistance: in fact, AXL expression was YAP dependent, and pharmacological or genetic AXL inhibition restored the sensitivity of resistant cells to the anti-EGFR drugs. Notably, YAP overactivation and AXL overexpression were identified in a lung cancer patient upon acquisition of resistance to EGFR TKIs, highlighting the clinical relevance of our in vitro results. The reported data demonstrate that YAP and its downstream target AXL play a crucial role in resistance to EGFR TKIs and suggest that a combined inhibition of EGFR and the YAP/AXL axis could be a good therapeutic option in selected NSCLC patients.

Intercalated Chemotherapy and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors for Patients With Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of concurrent epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) plus chemotherapy for unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) produced negative results. Intercalated administration could avoid the reduction of chemotherapy activity due to G1 cell-cycle arrest from EGFR-TKIs. A PubMed search was performed in December 2015 and updated in February 2016. The references from the selected studies were also checked to identify additional eligible trials. Furthermore, the proceedings of the main international meetings were searched from 2010 onward. We included RCTs comparing chemotherapy intercalated with an EGFR-TKI versus chemotherapy alone for patients with advanced NSCLC. Ten RCTs were eligible (6 with erlotinib, 4 with gefitinib): 39% of patients had a known EGFR mutational status, 43% of whom EGFR mutation positive. The intercalated combination was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.95; P = .01), progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .00001), and objective response rate (ORR; odds ratio [OR], 2.70; 95% CI, 2.08-3.49; P < .00001). Considering only first-line trials, similar differences were found in OS (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .05), PFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.73; P < .00001), and ORR (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.65-2.95; P < .00001). In EGFR mutation-positive patients, the addition of an intercalated EGFR-TKI produced a significant benefit in PFS (129 patients; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.37; P < .00001) and ORR (168 patients; OR, 11.59; 95% CI, 5.54-24.25; P < .00001). In patients with advanced NSCLC, chemotherapy plus intercalated EGFR-TKIs was superior to chemotherapy alone, although a definitive interpretation was jeopardized by the variable proportion of patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors included.