Pharmacological methods for ovarian function and fertility preservation in women with cancer: A literature review.

Oncofertility is an extremely significant topic that is increasingly being discussed owing to increased evidence indicating that fertility preservation does not affect the treatment outcomes of patients with cancer but significantly contributes to preserving life quality. The effect of chemotherapy can range from minimal effects to complete ovarian atrophy. Limited data are available on the effects of monoclonal antibodies and targeted therapies on the ovaries and fertility. Temporary ovarian suppression by administering a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) during chemotherapy decreases the gonadotoxic effect of chemotherapy, thereby diminishing the chance of developing premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). At present, the concomitant administration of GnRH analogs during chemotherapy is the only accepted pharmacological method for preserving ovarian function. Notably, most randomized studies on the effectiveness of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy in preventing POI have been conducted in women with breast cancer, with a considerably small number of studies on patients with hematological malignancies. Furthermore, most randomized controlled trials on breast cancer have revealed a decrease in treatment-induced POI risk, regardless of the hormone receptor status. In addition, studies on hematological malignancies have yielded negative results; nevertheless, the findings must be interpreted with caution owing to numerous limitations. Current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend sperm, oocyte, and embryo cryopreservation as a standard practice and only offering GnRHa to patients when proven fertility preservation methods are not feasible. In this manuscript, we present a comprehensive literature overview on the application of ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in patients with cancer by addressing preclinical and clinical data, as well as future perspectives in this field that upcoming research should focus on.

Tirzepatide use and the risk of cancer among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide has recently been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), based on its impressive effects on glycemia and body weight reduction. We investigated whether tirzepatide affects the risk for cancer in T2DM. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of available, up to 1st April 2024, phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of tirzepatide in T2DM. We set as primary safety endpoint the risk for any type of cancer, while we assessed as secondary endpoints specific cancer types. Subgroup analyses according to the type of comparator were also performed. RESULTS: We included a total of 9 RCTs with a relatively short study duration, ranging from 36 to 72 weeks. Our preliminary evidence suggests that tirzepatide does not increase the risk for any cancer (primary outcome) or any of the specific cancer types (secondary outcomes). Of course, small number of enrolled participants, short study duration and follow-up, along with scarcity of reported events are considered to be main limitations of the present analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence from our analysis suggests that tirzepatide may not affect the risk ofcancer among individuals with T2DM. However, our results should be interpreted with extra caution, based on the several limitations of our "hypothesis-generating" analysis Future, well-designed studies are warranted to answer this important research question.

Targeting triple-negative breast cancer: A clinical perspective.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a disease with often an aggressive course and a poor prognosis compared to other subtypes of breast cancer. TNBC accounts for approximately 10%-15% of all diagnosed breast cancer cases and represents a high unmet need in the field. Up to just a few years ago, chemotherapy was the only systemic treatment option for this subtype (1). To date, TNBC is considered a heterogeneous disease. One of the existing classifications is based on the analysis of mRNA expression in 587 TNBC cases, in which Lehman et al. proposed six subtypes of TNBC as follows: two basal-like (BL1 and BL2) subtypes, a mesenchymal (M) subtype, a mesenchymal stem-like (MSL) subtype, an immunomodulatory (IM) subtype, and a luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype (2). Later studies have demonstrated that the IM and MSL subtypes do not correlate with independent subtypes but reflect background expression by dense infiltration of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) or stromal cells. According to this finding, the classification of TNBC has been revised into the following four subtypes: basal 1, basal 2, LAR, and mesenchymal subtypes (3). Over the last years, several new strategies have been investigated for the treatment of patients with TNBC. Among them, immunotherapy, antibody drug conjugates, new chemotherapy agents, and targeted therapy have been and are currently being developed. The present article aims to provide an updated overview on the different treatment options that are now available or are still under investigation for patients with TNBC.

Immunotherapy: A new standard in the treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell cancer (RCC) represents 2%-3% of all adulthood cancers and is the most common malignant neoplasm of the kidney (90%). In the mid-nineties of the last century, the standard of treatment for patients with metastatic RCC was cytokines. Sunititib and pazopanib were registered in 2007 and 2009, respectively, and have since been the standard first-line treatment for metastatic clear cell RCC (mccRCC). Renal cell cancer is a highly immunogenic tumor with tumor infiltrating cells, including CD8+ T lymphocytes, dendritic cells, natural killer cells (NK) and macrophages. This observation led to the design of new clinical trials in which patients were treated with immunotherapy. With the growing evidence that proangiogenic factors can have immunomodulatory effects on the host's immune system, the idea of combining angiogenic drugs with immunotherapy has emerged, and new clinical trials have been designed. In the last few years, several therapeutic options have been approved [immunotherapy and immunotherapy/tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI)] for the first-line treatment of mccRCC. Nivolumab/ipilimumab is approved for the treatment of patients with intermediate and poor prognoses. Several checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab) in combination with TKI (axitinib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib) are approved for the treatment of patients regardless of their International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic group and PD-L1 expression. There is no specific and ideal biomarker that could help in selecting the ideal patient for the appropriate first-line treatment.

Immunotherapy in the treatment of lymphoma.

Relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, especially diffuse large B-cell lymphoma as well as relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphomas are hard-to-treat diseases. Patients who do not respond to initial therapy or experience relapse are treated with salvage regimens, and if eligible for aggressive therapy, treatment is continued with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Current therapy options can cure substantial numbers of patients, however for some it is still an uncurable disease. Numerous new drugs and cell therapies are being investigated for the treatment of relapsed or refractory lymphomas. Different types of immunotherapy options have shown promising results, and some have already become the standard of care. Here, we review immunotherapy options for the treatment of lymphoma and discuss the results, positions, practical aspects, and future directions of different drugs and cellular therapies for the treatment of this disease.

Checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of urological malignancies.

Checkpoint inhibitors are monoclonal antibodies attach to several different receptors on T-cells or tumour cells expressing receptors for cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed death-1 (PD-1) and their ligand (PD-L1). Since 2010, numerous trials on different tumour types have been conducted, which was resulted in these drugs being approved for the treatment of melanoma, lung cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma and head and neck cancers. Urological cancers, especially urothelial and renal-cell carcinomas, are immunogenic tumours. Since the late 70s, the bacillus Calmette-Gurin (BCG) vaccine has been used for intravesical instillation in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer from the mid-90s up until the discovery of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in 2007, interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon alpha (IFNα), which were the standard of care for metastatic renal-cell cancer. Two checkpoint inhibitors are already approved by the Food and Drug Administration: atezolizumab for metastatic urothelial cancer and nivolumab for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. There are many drugs are in different phases of clinical development. Here we review the current status of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of urological tumours.