Ramucirumab Beyond Disease Progression After Paclitaxel Plus Ramucirumab in Gastric Cancer: A Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Irinotecan monotherapy was the most widely used third-line chemotherapy for unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer in Japan until the approval of nivolumab in September 2017 and trifluridine/tipiracil in August 2019. The benefit of continuing ramucirumab with irinotecan, an anti-VEGFR-2 monoclonal antibody, after the failure of paclitaxel plus ramucirumab (PTX+RAM) as second-line chemotherapy, has been under debate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single-center phase II study was conducted in patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidines and platinum, who received PTX+RAM as second-line therapy and irinotecan plus ramucirumab (IRI+RAM) as third-line therapy after treatment failure (UMIN000022956). RESULTS: Eleven patients were enrolled from July 2016 to July 2018. Enrolment was discontinued due to difficulties in case ascertainment because of expanded third-line treatment options (originally planned for 53 patients). The median progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) of the IRI+RAM was 3.98 months [95% confidence interval (CI)=1.78-NA]. Among secondary endpoints, the transition rate to IRI+RAM was 45%, the rate of 8-week treatment continuation for IRI+RAM was 100%, the response rate for IRI+RAM was 0%, the median overall survival (OS) for PTX+RAM was 13.53 months (95%CI=1.61-24.36), and the median OS for IRI+RAM was 9.99 months (95CI=4.5-NA). CONCLUSION: The transition rate from PTX+RAM to IRI+RAM was reasonable. Ramucirumab beyond progressive disease may be beneficial for patients who are able to transition to IRI+RAM.

Continuous immunotherapy beyond progression in clinical practice for small cell lung cancer.

In non-small-cell lung cancer, continuous immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) beyond progression are often used in clinical practice. On the other hand, there is almost no data on whether the concept of continuous ICIs beyond progression can be adopted in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We describe the effectiveness of continuous ICIs beyond progression in SCLC. Medical courses of SCLC patients treated with chemo-immunotherapy were retrospectively reviewed at our hospital. The study included 36 patients with a median age of 73 years (range 46-83 years) who introduced chemo-immunotherapy between September 2019 and December 2022. Atezolizumab and durvalumab in combination with platinum plus etoposide were administered in 24 and 12 patients, respectively. The overall response rate was 67% and the disease control rate was 86%. The median progression-free survival and time to treatment failure (TTF) were 5.1 and 10.3 months, respectively. The median cycle of ICIs was 5 (range 1-42). The median overall survival was 13.6 months. ICIs were administered beyond progression in 14 (39%) patients: five were treated again with chemo-immunotherapy and local ablative radiotherapy, four with local ablative radiotherapy and continuous ICIs, three with chemo-immunotherapy, and two with continuous ICIs alone. TTF exceeded 12 months in 12 (86%) of the 14 cases, six of which were still on ICIs. Adverse events ≥grade 3 were observed in 21 (58%) patients. A notable TTF suggested a benefit of continuous ICIs beyond progression. The concept could be suitably adopted and provide a favorable prognosis in selected cases of SCLC that were previously regarded as an aggressive malignancy.

Time to strategy failure and treatment beyond progression in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving nivolumab: post-hoc analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study.

Background: Immunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS. Results: Overall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 - 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 - 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59). Conclusion: We found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

Immunotherapy Combined with Radiation in Malignant Melanoma without BRAF Mutations Brain Metastases-Favorable Response after Immunotherapy Continued beyond Progression.

We present the case of a patient who was diagnosed in 2018 with nodular Malignant Melanoma (MM) without BRAF V 600 mutations stage 3 C (pT4b pN1a M0), and who underwent adjuvant citokines treatment with Interferon alpha 2b-48 weeks. Immunotherapy was initiated in January 2021 for lung and lymph node metastases. In June 2021, there was a partial response of the lung and lymph node metastases, but there was also progression to brain metastases. Immunotherapy was continued and Whole Brain Radiotherapy (WBRT) was performed. In September 2023, the imaging investigations revealed a favorable response, with no lesions suggestive of secondary determinations. The combination of Radiotherapy (RT) and Immunotherapy (IT) with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) has an abscopal effect. There is a coordinated action in the combination of RT and IT in order to obtain a common result, with the antitumor effect being greater than if RT or IT acted separately.

Expanding the applications of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced lung cancer beyond disease progression.

Background: Immunotherapy, particularly the utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), assumes a pivotal role in the comprehensive management of advanced lung cancer. There has been substantial deliberation regarding the appropriateness of extending ICIs treatment beyond the point of disease progression. This study delves into the potential benefits of sustained utilization of ICIs subsequent to disease progression in patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 248 patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer who received treatment with ICIs. The study population comprised 99 patients in the treatment beyond progression (TBP) group and 42 patients in the non-treatment beyond progression (NTBP) group. Parameters including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were assessed. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was employed to analyze prognostic factors related to immunotherapy. Results: Patients undergoing primary treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibited a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.3 months. In the context of disease progression, a comparison between the TBP and NTBP groups was performed with respect to mPFS. The results demonstrated that the TBP group manifested an mPFS of 8.6 months, contrasting with the NTBP group's mPFS of 4.0 months (p=0.028). The mean overall survival (mOS) in the TBP group exhibited a statistically significant increase in comparison to the NTBP group (14.1 months vs. 6.0 months, p=0.028). Evaluation of the objective response rate (ORR) between the TBP and NTBP groups revealed a substantial distinction. The TBP group displayed an ORR of 12.1%, while the NTBP group exhibited a lower ORR of 2.4%. The statistical analysis yielded a p-value of 0.068, signifying a notable trend towards significance. The disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed and exhibited a noteworthy variance between the two groups, with a higher DCR of 92.9% in contrast to 71.4% in the control group (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Subsequent to ICIs treatment, a subset of patients may derive continued benefits from anticancer therapy, notwithstanding the progression of their advanced lung cancer.

Ramucirumab beyond progression plus TAS-102 in patients with advanced or metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, after treatment failure on a ramucirumab-based therapy.

Based on results of prior trials (TAGS, REGARD, RAINBOW), the combination of ramucirumab beyond progression with TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) seems to be promising in advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA). In this multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, investigator-initiated pilot trial, ramucirumab-pretreated patients with metastatic EGA received a maximum of 4 cycles of ramucirumab (8 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 and 15, Q2W) plus TAS-102 (35 mg/m2 p.o. bid on day 1-5 and day 8-12; Q2W). Primary endpoint was tolerability and toxicity, defining a positive trial if the SAE rate according to CTCAE 5.0 will increase <30% (up to 55%) compared to historical results from TAGS trial (SAE rate 43%). Secondary endpoints were further evaluation of safety and assessment of efficacy according to tumor response and overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS). Twenty patients, 20% gastric and 80% GEJ cancers and 55% with ECOG 0 were enrolled. In total, nine SAEs were reported in 25% [95% CI: 8.7-49.1] of the patients, all without relationship to the systemic therapy. The median OS and PFS were 9.1 months [5.4-10.1] and 2.9 months [1.7-4.8], respectively. In addition, a disease control rate of 45% was obtained. The trial showed a favorable safety profile with a numerically lower incidence of SAEs for the combination of ramucirumab with TAS-102 compared to historical TAGS trial. Furthermore, the combination demonstrated efficacy in the beyond progression setting and therefore warrants further evaluation in a randomized trial compared to TAS-102 alone.

Clinical outcomes of immunotherapy continued beyond radiographic disease progression in older adult patients with advanced non­small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment strategy for older adult patients (aged ≥70 years) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Unfortunately, most patients who receive immunotherapy eventually exhibit disease progression during treatment. The present study reports on a subset of older adult patients with advanced NSCLC who could effectively continue immunotherapy beyond radiographic disease progression due to perceived clinical benefit. Local consolidative radiotherapy may be used in select older adult patients to prolong the duration of immunotherapy they receive, with a particular consideration of their preexisting co-morbidities, performance status and tolerance of potential toxicities associated with combined modality therapy. However, prospective research is needed to determine which patients benefit most from the addition of local consolidative radiotherapy, including whether type of disease progression (i.e., sites of progression, pattern of progression) and/or extent of consolidation offered (i.e., complete or incomplete) impact clinical outcomes. Further research is also warranted to determine which patients would most benefit from the continuation of immunotherapy beyond documented radiographic disease progression.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors beyond first-line progression with prior immunotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: Immunotherapy, monotherapy, and immunotherapy plus platinum-based chemotherapy are the standard treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with negative driver genes. However, the impact of similar continuing immunotherapy beyond progression (IBP) of first-line immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC has not yet been shown. This study aimed to estimate the impact of immunotherapy beyond first-line progression (IBF) and evaluate the factors associated with second-line efficacity. Methods: Ninety-four cases of advanced NSCLC patients with progressive disease (PD) post first-line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and administrated prior immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) between November 2017 and July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were applied to determine predictive factors independently associated with second-line efficacity. Results: A total of 94 patients were incorporated in this study. Patients who continued the original ICIs after initial PD were defined as IBF (n=42), whereas those who discontinued immunotherapy were defined as non-IBF (n=52). The second-line objective response rates (ORR, ORR = CR + PR) of patients in the IBF and non-IBF groups were 13.5% vs. 28.6%, respectively (P=0.070). No significant survival difference was found between patients in the IBF and non-IBF groups in first-line median progression-free survival (PFS) (mPFS1, 6.2 vs. 5.1 months, P=0.490), second-line median PFS (mPFS2, 4.5 vs. 2.6 months, P=0.216), or median overall survival (OS) (mOS, 14.4 vs. 8.3 months, P=0.188). However, the benefits inPFS2 were observed in individuals performed PFS1 >6 months (group A) than those of PFS1 ≤6 months (group B) (median PFS2, 4.6 vs. 3.2 months, P=0.038). Multivariate analyses did not reveal any independent prognostic factors for efficacy. Conclusions: The benefits of continuing prior ICIs administration beyond first-line immunotherapy progression might not be obvious in patients with advanced NSCLC, but those first line treatment showed a longer period may receive efficacy benefits.

Pseudoprogression and Mixed Responses in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated With Nivolumab: A Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are part of the current standard of care for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC). ICI can elicit diverse tumor response, including atypical responses such as pseudoprogression (psPD), mixed responses (MR) and late responses. We aimed to analyze the occurrence and prognostic impact of atypical responses in m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab in first or subsequent therapy line between November 2012 and July 2022 was performed. All radiographic evaluations of eligible patients were analyzed using the iRECIST consensus guideline. RESULTS: We assessed 247 baseline target lesions in 94 eligible patients. MR occurred in 11 (11.7%) patients: in 7 at first CT (computed tomography) evaluation (CT1) and in 4 at second CT evaluation (CT2). In 8 patients (73%), MR evolved to confirmed PD. In 3 patients (27%), MR evolved towards a partial response (PR) and was thus a psPD. psPD occurred in 8 (8.5%) patients: with psPD features at CT1 in 3 patients, with psPD features at CT2 in 2 patients, and with MR features at CT1 in 3 patients. psPD patients had similar progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients displaying PR as best response without a phase of psPD. 76 patients were treated beyond immune unconfirmed progressive disease (iUPD) at any moment: 12 (16%) of them evolved towards PR or stable disease (SD). Treatment beyond immune confirmed PD (iCPD) in 20 patients did not lead to PR or SD. CONCLUSION: Atypical responses such as psPD and MR occurred in 8.5% and 11.7% of m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab at CT1 and CT2. Patients with psPD had favorable outcomes, while MR most often evolved to progression. Treatment with nivolumab beyond iCPD did not lead to tumor stabilization or regression.

Dabrafenib-Trametinib and Radiotherapy for Oligoprogressive BRAF Mutant Advanced Melanoma.

The clinical management of metastatic melanoma has been changed by BRAF (BRAFi) and MEK inhibitors (MEKi), which represent a standard treatment for BRAF-mutant melanoma. In oligoprogressive melanoma patients with BRAF mutations, target therapy can be combined with loco-regional radiotherapy (RT). However, the association of BRAF/MEK inhibitors and RT needs to be carefully monitored for potential increased toxicity. Despite the availability of some reports regarding the tolerability of RT + target therapy, data on simultaneous RT and BRAFi/MEKi are limited and mostly focused on the BRAFi vemurafenib. Here, we report a series of metastatic melanoma patients who received fractioned RT regimens for oligoprogressive disease in combination with the BRAFi dabrafenib and the MEKi trametinib, which have continued beyond progression. None of the cases developed relevant adverse events while receiving RT or interrupted dabrafenib and trametinib administration. These cases suggest that a long period of dabrafenib/trametinib interruption during radiotherapy for oligoprogressive disease can be avoided. Prospective trials are warranted to assess the efficacy and safety of the contemporary administration of BRAF/MEK inhibitors and radiotherapy for oligoprogressive disease.

The benefit of treatment beyond progression with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment beyond progression (TBP) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is an evolving field due to the limitations of conventional imaging in response evaluation. However, real-life data on the benefit of TBP is scarce, especially from the limited resource settings and patients treated in the later lines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the survival benefit of TBP with ICIs in patients with advanced tumors from a limited resource setting. METHODS: For this multi-center retrospective cohort study, we included 282 patients treated with ICIs and had radiological progression according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. We evaluated post-progression survival according to the use of TBP (TBP and non-TBP groups) with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The cohort's median age was 61, and 84.4% were treated in the second or later lines. 82 (29.1%) of 282 patients continued on ICIs following the initial progression. In multivariate analyses, patients in the TBP group had improved post-progression survival compared to non-TBP (13.18 vs. 4.63 months, HR: 0.500, 95% CI: 0.349-0.717, p < 0.001). The benefit of the TBP was independent of the tumor type, treatment line, and age. Furthermore, TBP with ICIs remained associated with improved post-progression survival (HR: 0.600, 95% CI: 0.380-0.947, p = 0.028) after excluding the patients with no further treatment after progression in the non-TBP arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that patients receiving ICIs beyond progression had considerably longer survival. Continuation of ICIs after progression should be considered a reasonable management option for patients with advanced cancer, specifically for patients with limited alternative options.

Treatment beyond progression in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Treatment beyond progression (TBP) is defined as treatment continuing in spite of disease progression, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence for the effects of TBP on lung cancer survival. Materials and methods: This study has been conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials from the inception of each database to December 2021 was conducted. Two authors independently reviewed articles for inclusion and extract data from all the retrieved articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Hazard ratios (HRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for survival outcomes. Results: We identified five (15.6%) prospective randomized trials and twenty-seven (84.4%) retrospective observational studies of a total of 9,631 patients for the meta-analysis. 3,941 patients (40.9%) were in a TBP group and 5,690 patients (59.1%) were in a non-TBP group. There is a statistically significant advantage for patients who received TBP compared with those who did not in post progression progression-free survival (ppPFS), post progression overall survival (ppOS), and overall survival (OS) from initiation of drugs (ppPFS: HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.644-0.865; P<0.001; ppOS: HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.596-0.797; P<0.001; OS from initiation of drugs: HR, 0.515; 95% CI, 0.387-0.685; P<0.001). Conclusion: This study provides further evidence in support of TBP for NSCLC, however, these results require cautious interpretation. Large, randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TBP in lung cancer treatment are warranted. Systemic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ identifier CRD42021285147.

Trastuzumab-based regimens beyond progression: A crucial treatment option for HER2+ advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

Upon its establishment for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (mBC), continuing trastuzumab beyond disease progression was an important paradigm shift that became the recommendation by major guidelines. However, data supporting continuation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab beyond the second-line setting are limited, resulting in a lack of approval of, or access to, this therapeutic strategy in many countries. This study aimed to provide additional data on the continued use of trastuzumab and trastuzumab-based therapies in combination with chemotherapy (CT) as third-line treatment for patients with mBC. This open-cohort, retrospective, observational study used deidentified patient-level data from an electronic health record-derived database that included patients with mBC who initiated third-line treatment with trastuzumab-based therapy combined with CT (Tras + CT; n = 288) or CT alone (CT; n = 49). Patients who received Tras + CT had a longer weighted median overall survival vs those who received CT only: 20.6 months (95% CI, 18.3-26.4 months) vs 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.8-12.3 months), respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.53). This study provides additional support for maintaining trastuzumab-based therapies for patients with HER2+ mBC beyond second-line treatment. This treatment option should be available for all patients with mBC worldwide.

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Anti-PD-(L)1 Therapy Among Older Adults With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: As a result of the approval of several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), many older adults are being treated with ICIs. Older adults are underrepresented in most pharmaceutical clinical trials. Therapy outcomes in this population with ICIs is particularly important since, age related factors may have an influence on the immune system. METHODS: We utilized the MD Anderson Cancer Center Gemini Team's Lung Cancer Database to retrospectively study patients ≥70 years of age with advanced NSCLC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy to look at the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 179 patients met the inclusion criteria for this retrospective analysis. There were 106 men and 73 women. The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and overall survival was 20.6 months. 27.6% of all patients had an objective response to therapy. In 33 patients who had radiological progression, treatment continued beyond progression due to clinical benefit. In this group, 6 patients had subsequent improvement in radiologic assessment. Age groups were not significantly associated with differences in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy is effective and well tolerated among older adults with advanced NSCLC. While pseudoprogression is rare, treatment beyond progression may provide clinical benefit in a subset of patients and warrants further investigation.

Continuation of Lorlatinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC Beyond Progressive Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib, a potent, selective third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), exhibited overall and intracranial antitumor activity in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: Retrospective analyses in the ongoing phase 2 trial (NCT01970865) investigated the clinical benefit of continuing lorlatinib beyond progressive disease (LBPD). Patients with previous crizotinib treatment as the only ALK TKI were group A (n = 28); those with at least one previous second-generation ALK TKIs were group B (n = 74). LBPD was defined as greater than 3 weeks of lorlatinib treatment after investigator-assessed progressive disease. Only patients with the best overall response of complete or partial response or stable disease were included. RESULTS: There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The median duration of treatment for patients who continued LBPD was 32.4 months (group A) and 16.4 months (group B) versus 12.5 months (group A) and 7.7 months (group B) for patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival in group A was not reached (NR) in patients who continued LBPD versus 24.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.1-NR); group B's median was 26.5 months (95% CI: 18.7-35.5) in patients who continued LBPD versus 14.7 months (95% CI: 9.3-38.5) in patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival postprogression for groups A and B was NR (95% CI: 21.4-NR) and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.2-19.2) in patients who continued LBPD and 8.0 months (95% CI: 1.5-NR) versus 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.8-14.3) in patients who did not continue LBPD. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing LBPD is a viable treatment strategy for select patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on lorlatinib.

Efficacy of immunotherapy beyond RECIST progression in advanced melanoma: a real-world evidence.

Immunotherapy (ITH) holds the possibility of tumor burden decrease after initial RECIST 1.1 defined progression. The clinical concept of treating selected patients (pts) beyond disease progression (PD) is supported by so-called pseudoprogression phenomenon. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-life practice and outcomes related to treatment beyond (RECIST) progression (TBP) in advanced melanoma patients. Of 584 subsequent melanoma pts analyzed 77 (13.2%) received TBP. In this cohort, the median time to first PD (TTFP) was 5.29 months (m), while time to second PD (TTSP)-8.02 m. On TBP 23.4% pts achieved an objective response (OR), and next 42.9%-stabilization of the disease (SD). 1st PD was reported most often as the development of a new lesion or increase (> 20%) of the diameter of three or more targets. In about 50% second PD was observed as an increase in the diameter of different targets that in 1st PD. Multimodal treatment resulted in 9.82 m TTSP, while ITH alone-4.93 m (p = 0.128). An oligoprogressive pattern of first PD was associated with longer TTSP (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.94). Median OS after first PD was 28.75 months and correlated with OR during TBP (HR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.004-0.76). Selected clinically fit melanoma patients, despite evidence of first radiographic progression, may benefit from continued treatment with PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors, but the findings should be validated in larger prospective trials. Multidisciplinary treatment should be offered to advanced melanoma patients, including radiosurgery or stereotactic radiotherapy of single loci progressing during immunotherapy.

Circulating Cytokines in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Select Different Prognostic Groups and Patients Who Might Benefit from Treatment beyond Progression.

Cancer induces immune suppression to overcome its recognition and eradication by the immune system. Cytokines are messengers able to modulate immune response or suppression. There is great interest in the evaluation of their changes during treatment in order to identify their relationship with clinical outcome. We evaluated 18 cytokines in breast cancer patients treated with eribulin before starting treatment (T0) and after four courses of therapy (T1). Longitudinal modifications were considered and cytokine clusters through PCA and HCPC correlated to patients' outcomes were identified. Forty-one metastatic breast cancer patients and fifteen healthy volunteers were included. After clustering, we identified at T0 six patient clusters with different risk of relapse and death. At T1, only four clusters were identified, and three of them accounted for thirty-eight of forty-one patients, suggesting a possible role of treatment in reducing heterogeneity. The cluster with the best survival at T1 was characterized by low levels of IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, CCL-2, CCL-4, and TGF-ß. The cluster showing the worst survival encompassed high levels of IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, CCL-2, and IFN-γ. A subgroup of patients with short progression-free survival (PFS) and long overall survival (OS) was comprised in the cluster characterized by low levels of CCL-2, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-12 at T0. Our data support the prognostic significance of longitudinal serum cytokine analysis. This approach may help identify patients for whom early treatment stop avoids needless toxicity or might justify treatment beyond early progression. Further investigations are required to validate this hypothesis.

Cabozantinib beyond progression improves survival in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients: the CABEYOND study (Meet-URO 21).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib improves survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after prior antiangiogenics. The best treatment at disease progression (PD) is unknown. Being also a AXL/MET inhibitor, involved in acquired resistance, we hypothesized a prolonged tumor growth control in patients continuing cabozantinib despite PD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study enrolled patients receiving cabozantinib after the first line between 2014 and 2020. We compared patients maintaining cabozantinib after first PD due to clinical benefit and good tolerability with those who changed therapy. The postprogression survival (PPS) of both was our primary endpoint. RESULTS: We analyzed 89 patients: 45 received cabozantinib beyond PD and 44 switched therapy. 40.4%, 31.5%, and 28.1% of patients received 1, 2, or >2 prior treatment, respectively. 84.3% were intermediate-poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database risk. Patients continuing cabozantinib showed a higher response rate to cabozantinib before PD (46.7% vs 25%, p = 0.03) and were more heavily pretreated. Continuing cabozantinib showed a significantly longer PPS compared with switching therapy (median PPS 16.9 vs 13.2 months, HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.48-0.92, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: We observed longer PPS in patients continuing cabozantinib beyond PD, suggesting that this could be an effective option.

Second-line chemotherapy after early disease progression during first-line chemotherapy containing bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The ML18174 study, which showed benefits of bevacizumab (BEV) continuation beyond progression (BBP) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), excluded patients with first-line progression-free survival (PFS) shorter than 3 months. The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy after early disease progression during first-line chemotherapy containing bevacizumab. METHODS: The subjects of this study were mCRC patients who experienced disease progression < 100 days from commencement of first-line chemotherapy containing BEV initiated between Apr 2007 and Dec 2016. Second-line chemotherapy regimens were classified into two groups with and without BEV/other anti-angiogenic agents (BBP and non-BBP) and efficacy and safety were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were identified as subjects of this study. Baseline characteristics were numerically different between BBP (n = 37) and non-BBP (n = 25) groups, such as performance status (0-1/> 2/unknown: 89/8/3 and 56/40/4%), RAS status (wild/mutant/unknown: 32/54/16 and 76/16/8%). Response rate was 8.6% in BBP group and 9.1% in non-BBP group (p = 1.00). Median PFS was 3.9 months in BBP group and 2.8 months in non-BBP group (HR [95%CI]: 0.79 [0.46-1.34], p = 0.373, adjusted HR: 0.87 [0.41-1.82], p = 0.707). Median overall survival was 8.5 months in BBP group and 5.4 months in non-BBP group (HR 0.66 [0.38-1.12], p = 0.125, adjusted HR 0.53 [0.27-1.07], p = 0.078). CONCLUSION: In mCRC patients who experienced early progression in first-line chemotherapy, second-line chemotherapy showed poor clinical outcomes regardless use of anti-angiogenic agents.

Treatment beyond progression and locoregional approaches in selected patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

The clinical management of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma had an important turning point after the introduction of the targeted therapy. Despite the efficacy and good tolerability of this treatment, the development of resistance mechanisms causes disease progression. The aim of this review is to investigate the role of treatment beyond progression and locoregional approaches in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma and provide oncologists dealing with this malignancy a useful road map on when and why to choose this strategy. The article is structured in the form of a narrative review reporting the most significant studies on the subject. Most of the available articles are represented by retrospective studies and case reports, leading to limitations in the final interpretations. Nevertheless, a correct analysis of the selected studies allows the drawing of some conclusions. In well-selected cases, treatment beyond progression could play an important role in the treatment sequence of patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma and would seem to produce good disease control rates and positive survival outcomes. A careful evaluation of the radiological examinations and laboratory tests, based on the clinical conditions, allows the identification of which patients can benefit from this strategy. Such patients are those who, at the time of progression, have favourable features such as a lower performance status according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG-PS), normal lactate dehydrogenase levels and lower disease burden. The clinical benefit is also consolidated by the addition of locoregional approaches. Locoregional approaches can include electrochemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery, and their use provides local disease control and a better quality of life for patients.