Infections in lung cancer patients undergoing immunotherapy and targeted therapy: An overview on the current scenario.

Patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer are often vulnerable to infection, and the risk is increased by tumor-associated immunosuppression and the effects of the treatments. Historically, links between the risk of infection and cytotoxic chemotherapy due to neutropenia and respiratory syndromes are well established. The advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death- ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) have changed the treatment paradigm for lung cancer patients. Our understanding of the risk of infections while administrating these drugs is evolving, as are the biological mechanisms that are responsible. In this overview, we focus on the risk of infection with the use of targeted therapies and ICIs, summarizing current evidence from preclinical and clinical studies and discussing their clinical implications.

Nutritional support in lung cancer: Time to combine immunonutrition with immunotherapy?

Although there is substantial evidence on the impact of nutritional-status deterioration on quality of life, treatment tolerance, morbidity, and mortality in people with cancer, clinical nutrition intervention trials in oncology are still limited. The rationale for deepening this topic is also justified by the availability of innovative treatment options, such as immunotherapy, which take into consideration potential modulation of the immune system by several factors. In this article, we aimed to focus on the unexplored issue of immunonutrition and its potential modulatory activity on treatment response in people receiving immunotherapy. With this perspective, we propose a clinical-trial model to explore the potential impact of immunonutrition on nutritional, functional, immunologic, safety, and efficacy parameters in people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer undergoing first-line immunotherapy-based anticancer treatment.

Adherence to and effectiveness of lenalidomide after 1 year of treatment in a real world setting.

BACKGROUND: In combination with dexamethasone, lenalidomide is prescribed in the oral treatment of Multiple Myeloma for patients who have received at least one previous therapy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate medication adherence to lenalidomide of Multiple Myeloma patients, as well as Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival one year from the beginning of the treatment. SETTING: The study was carried out in Pescara Hospital, in Italy. All Multiple Myeloma patients who began lenalidomide therapy between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2016 were included in our study. METHODS: Adherence to treatment was calculated by using the ratio between the Received Daily Dose and the Prescribed Daily Dose. Effectiveness in real world has been evaluated as Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival one year from the beginning of the treatment.Main outcomes measure: We assessed medication adherence and effectiveness of lenalidomide in the treatment of Multiple Myeloma. RESULTS: Adherence to the overall mean treatment was 0.73 ± 0.15, relative to 81 patients evaluated in our study. 32% of patients achieved an adherence equal to or greater than 80%. Real-life effectiveness in terms of Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival showed values of ​​53.75% and 88%, respectively, one year from the beginning of treatment. CONCLUSION: The analysis of adherence in Multiple Myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide one year from the beginning of therapy reveal a concerning lack of adherence. Moreover, the lack of correlation of the levels of adherence with patient-related variables shows that, in the case of Multiple Myeloma, adherence is not related to personal, social and environmental characteristics that may determine each patient's correct treatment implementation, but is directly influenced by disease evolution.

Risk of Infection with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The relative risk (RR) of infection for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the risk of infection for patients with solid tumors undergoing ICI therapy based on a systematic review and meta-analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Pubmed databases were searched up to 1 December 2020. Randomized trials comparing any ICI alone, with chemotherapy (CT), or with other agents versus placebo, CT, or other agents were included. Three independent reviewers extracted the data. The primary outcome was the RR of all-grade (G) and G3-5 infections for patients receiving ICI-based treatments. Random or fixed-effect models were used according to statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 21,451 patients from N = 36 studies were eligible. ICIs were associated with a similar risk of all-grade infections (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.84-1.24; P = 0.85) versus non-ICI treatments (G1-5 events: 9.6 versus 8.3%). When the ICIs alone were compared to CT, their use was associated with 42% less risk of all-grade infections (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.4-0.85; P = 0.01). Compared to CT, the combination of ICIs and CT increased the risk of all-grade (RR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.23-1.53; P < 0.01) and severe infections (RR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.17-1.96; P < 0.01). In anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, anti-CTLA-4, monotherapy, and combination trials, the RR of all-grade infections was 0.72 (95% CI 0.49-1.05; P = 0.09), 1.18 (95% CI 0.95-1.46; P = 0.13), 1.74 (95% CI 1.13-2.67; P = 0.01), 0.97 (95% CI 0.79-1.19; P = 0.75) and 2.26 (95% CI 1.34-3.8; P < 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CT alone, ICIs were safer and are recommended for frail patients. Conversely, CT + ICIs or ICIs combinations increased infection risk. Further studies are required to identify high-risk patients and evaluate the need for CT dose reduction or prophylactic myeloid growth factors.

Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, with or without bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone consolidation therapy, and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (EMN02/HO95): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of highly active novel agents has led some to question the role of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and subsequent consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We therefore compared autologous HSCT with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) as intensification therapy, and bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD) consolidation therapy with no consolidation. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study we recruited previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma at 172 academic and community practice centres of the European Myeloma Network. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years, had symptomatic multiple myeloma stage 1-3 according to the International Staging System (ISS), measurable disease (serum M protein >10 g/L or urine M protein >200 mg in 24 h or abnormal free light chain [FLC] ratio with involved FLC >100 mg/L, or proven plasmacytoma by biopsy), and WHO performance status grade 0-2 (grade 3 was allowed if secondary to myeloma). Patients were first randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either four 42-day cycles of bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 administered intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32) combined with melphalan (9 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1-4) and prednisone (60 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1-4) or autologous HSCT after high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2), stratified by site and ISS disease stage. In centres with a double HSCT policy, the first randomisation (1:1:1) was to VMP or single or double HSCT. Afterwards, a second randomisation assigned patients to receive two 28-day cycles of consolidation therapy with bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11), lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21), and dexamethasone (20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) or no consolidation; both groups received lenalidomide maintenance therapy (10 mg orally on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). The primary outcomes were progression-free survival from the first and second randomisations, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who underwent each randomisation. All patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017903-28) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01208766), and has completed recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Feb 25, 2011, and April 3, 2014, 1503 patients were enrolled. 1197 patients were eligible for the first randomisation, of whom 702 were assigned to autologous HSCT and 495 to VMP; 877 patients who were eligible for the first randomisation underwent the second randomisation to VRD consolidation (n=449) or no consolidation (n=428). The data cutoff date for the current analysis was Nov 26, 2018. At a median follow-up of 60·3 months (IQR 52·2-67·6), median progression-free survival was significantly improved with autologous HSCT compared with VMP (56·7 months [95% CI 49·3-64·5] vs 41·9 months [37·5-46·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 0·62-0·85; p=0·0001). For the second randomisation, the number of events of progression or death at data cutoff was lower than that preplanned for the final analysis; therefore, the results from the second protocol-specified interim analysis, when 66% of events were reached, are reported (data cutoff Jan 18, 2018). At a median follow-up of 42·1 months (IQR 32·3-49·2), consolidation therapy with VRD significantly improved median progression-free survival compared with no consolidation (58·9 months [54·0-not estimable] vs 45·5 months [39·5-58·4]; HR 0·77, 0·63-0·95; p=0·014). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the autologous HSCT group compared to the VMP group included neutropenia (513 [79%] of 652 patients vs 137 [29%] of 472 patients), thrombocytopenia (541 [83%] vs 74 [16%]), gastrointestinal disorders (80 [12%] vs 25 [5%]), and infections (192 [30%] vs 18 [4%]). 239 (34%) of 702 patients in the autologous HSCT group and 135 (27%) of 495 in the VMP group had at least one serious adverse event. Infection was the most common serious adverse event in each of the treatment groups (206 [56%] of 368 and 70 [37%] of 189). 38 (12%) of 311 deaths from first randomisation were likely to be treatment related: 26 (68%) in the autologous HSCT group and 12 (32%) in the VMP group, most frequently due to infections (eight [21%]), cardiac events (six [16%]), and second primary malignancies (20 [53%]). INTERPRETATION: This study supports the use of autologous HSCT as intensification therapy and the use of consolidation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, even in the era of novel agents. The role of high-dose chemotherapy needs to be reassessed in future studies, in particular in patients with undetectable minimal residual disease after four-drug induction regimens including a monoclonal antiboby combined with an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor plus dexamethasone. FUNDING: Janssen and Celgene.

Final results of the SENECA (SEcond line NintEdanib in non-small cell lung CAncer) trial.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the scant docetaxel's tolerability, second-line association with nintedanib still represents a standard-of-care for non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC), giving to rapidly-progressing patients the greatest survival advantage. The SENECA trial is a phase IIb, open-label, study evaluating whether nintedanib/docetaxel can be equally effective and safe regardless docetaxel schedule. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Recurrent nsNSCLC patients were stratified into cohort 1 and 2, according to relapse-time (within or over 3 months) from end of first-line chemotherapy. They were treated with docetaxel (T1: 33 mg/mq on days 1 and 8 in a 21-days cycle; T2: 75 mg/mq q3wks) plus nintedanib, allowing maintenance in case of disease-control. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by investigator's assessment; secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), safety and quality-of-life. RESULTS: Between January 2016-April 2018, 212 patients were evaluated: 30 resulted screening-failures, 12 were excluded for lack of compliance. According to investigator's choice, 85 patients received T1 docetaxel and 85 T2; 138 (81.2%) were stratified in C1, 32 (18.8%) in C2, with a median relapse-time of 0.54 and 9.29 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. After 35.5 months follow-up, no survival differences appear between cohorts and treatments; toxicity seems to be slightly higher in T2, especially for chemotherapy-related events. Perception of quality-of-life remains stable and docetaxel schedule doesn't modify patients' load. CONCLUSION: The SENECA trial confirms efficacy of second-line nintedanib/docetaxel for nsNSCLC, regardless time of recurrence and docetaxel schedule; higher toxicities for q3wks docetaxel, without alterations in quality-of-life, have been described, underling the possibility, adopting the weekly schedule, to maintain efficacy with better tolerability.

Clinical significance of glycemic parameters on venous thromboembolism risk prediction in gastrointestinal cancer.

AIM: To investigate the possible predictive role of routinely used glycemic parameters for a first venous thromboembolism (VTE) episode in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer ambulatory patients - with or without clinically diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) or obesity - treated with chemotherapy. METHODS: Pre-treatment fasting blood glucose, insulin, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and homeostasis model of risk assessment (HOMA) were retrospectively evaluated in a cohort study of 342 GI cancer patients. Surgery was performed in 142 (42%) patients with primary cancer, 30 (21%) and 112 (79%) of whom received neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, respectively. First-line chemotherapy was administered in 200 (58%) patients with metastatic disease. The study outcome was defined as the occurrence of a first symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE episode during active treatment. RESULTS: Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or T2D were diagnosed in 30% of GI cancer patients, while overweight/obesity had an incidence of 41%. VTE occurred in 9.4% of patients (7% of non-diabetic non-obese), especially in those with a high ECOG score (P = 0.025). No significant association was found between VTE incidence and T2D, obesity, different tumor types, metastatic disease, Khorana class of risk, or different anti-cancer drugs, although VTE rates were substantially higher in patients receiving bevacizumab (17% vs 8%, P = 0.044). Conversely, all glucose metabolic indexes were associated with increased VTE risk at ROC analysis. Multivariate Cox proportional analyses confirmed that HOMA index (HR = 4.13, 95%CI: 1.63-10.5) or fasting blood glucose (HR = 3.56, 95%CI: 1.51-8.39) were independent predictors of VTE occurrence during chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The results here reported demonstrate that evaluating glucose metabolic asset may allow for VTE risk stratification in GI cancer, helping to identify chemotherapy-treated patients who might benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Further multicenter prospective studies involving a larger number of patients are presently needed.

Changes in sex hormone levels after radical prostatectomy: Results of a longitudinal cohort study.

The changes in testosterone and gonadotropin levels in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) remain unclear. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the changes in serum testosterone (Te), luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels in the early months after RP for PCa and the correlation between these hormones at various follow-up times. A total of 100 male patients with clinically localized PCa were consecutively included in the study. The serum levels of Te, LH and FSH were measured prior to RP (baseline) and at 1 and 3 months post-operatively. Changes in the levels of Te, LH and FSH between the baseline and at 1 and 3 months after RP were analyzed with paired sample t-tests. The correlations between LH and Te levels at the various follow-up times were evaluated with a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. At 1 month subsequent to RP, the Te levels were significantly decreased (baseline vs. 1 month, P=0.021) and subsequently recovered to the pre-operative value at 3 months (baseline vs. 3 months, P=0.372). The mean Te level at baseline was 15.3 nmol/l, while at 1 and 3 months it was 13.8 and 14.4 nmol/l, respectively. By contrast, the levels of LH and FSH were significantly increased at 1 and 3 months post-surgery, compared with the baseline value (baseline vs. 1 or 3 months, P<0.0001). The pre-operative correlation between LH and Te was lost 1 month after RP and recovered after 3 months. Notably, the LH level at 1 month was markedly correlated with the Te levels recorded after 3 months. In the present study, patients developed compensated hypergonadotropic hypogonadism 3 months after RP.