Gut and local microbiota in patients with cancer: increasing evidence and potential clinical applications.

In recent years, cancer research has highlighted the role of disrupted microbiota in carcinogenesis and cancer recurrence. However, microbiota may also interfere with drug metabolism, influencing the efficacy of cancer drugs, especially immunotherapy, and modulating the onset of adverse events. Intestinal micro-organisms can be altered by external factors, such as use of antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors treatment, lifestyle and the use of prebiotics or probiotics. The aim of our review is to provide a picture of the current evidence about preclinical and clinical data of the role of gut and local microbiota in malignancies and its potential clinical role in cancer treatments. Standardization of microbiota sequencing approaches and its modulating strategies within prospective clinical trials could be intriguing for two aims: first, to provide novel potential biomarkers both for early cancer detection and for therapeutic effectiveness; second, to propose personalized and "microbiota-tailored" treatment strategies.

Analysis of phase III clinical trials in metastatic NSCLC to assess the correlation between QoL results and survival outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In addition to improving survival outcomes, new oncology treatments should lead to amelioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Herein, we examined whether QoL results correlated with PFS and OS outcomes in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating new systemic treatments in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in October 2022. We identified 81 RCTs testing novel drugs in metastatic NSCLC and published in the English language in a PubMed-indexed journal between 2012 and 2021. Only trials reporting QoL results and at least one survival outcome between OS and PFS were selected. For each RCT, we assessed whether global QoL was "superior," "inferior," or with "non-statistically significant difference" in the experimental arm compared to the control arm. RESULTS: Experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 30 (37.0%) RCTs and inferior QoL in 3 (3.7%) RCTs. In the remaining 48 (59.3%) RCTs, a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control arms was not found. Of note, we found a statistically significant association between QoL and PFS improvements (X2 = 3.93, p = 0.0473). In more detail, this association was not significant in trials testing immunotherapy or chemotherapy. On the contrary, in RCTs testing target therapies, QoL results positively correlated with PFS outcomes (p = 0.0196). This association was even stronger in the 32 trials testing EGFR or ALK inhibitors (p = 0.0077). On the other hand, QoL results did not positively correlate with OS outcomes (X2 = 0.81, p = 0.368). Furthermore, we found that experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 27/57 (47.4%) trials with positive results and in 3/24 (12.5%) RCTs with negative results (p = 0.0028). Finally, we analyzed how QoL data were described in publications of RCTs in which QoL outcomes were not improved (n = 51). We found that a favorable description of QoL results was associated with sponsorship by industries (p = 0.0232). CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a positive association of QoL results with PFS outcomes in RCTs testing novel treatments in metastatic NSCLC. This association is particularly evident for target therapies. These findings further emphasize the relevance of an accurate assessment of QoL in RCTs in NSCLC.

Analysis of the adequacy of control arms in oncology randomised clinical trials published between 2017 and 2021: a meta-research study.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are usually considered the highest level of evidence for clinical practice. Patients assigned to control arm in RCTs should always receive the best available treatments to protect participants while also allowing for proper interpretation and applicability of study results. Here we analysed RCTs published in oncology between 2017 and 2021 to describe the frequency of suboptimal control arms. METHODS: We identified phase III studies testing active treatments in patients with solid tumours among 11 major oncology journals. Each control arm was analysed, and the standard of care was determined according to international guidelines and scientific evidence at accrual beginning and until accrual completion. We identified studies with suboptimal control arm from the beginning (type 1) and studies with an initially optimal control arm which became outdated during the accrual period (type 2). RESULTS: This analysis included 387 studies. Forty-three (11.1%) control arms were judged as suboptimal: 24 (6.2%) type 1 and 19 (4.9%) type 2. These rates were higher in industry-sponsored compared to academic trials: 9.3% versus 1.9% for type 1 (p = 0.003); 7.9% versus 0.6% for type 2 (p = 0.001). Rates of suboptimal control arms were higher in studies with positive results: 8.1% versus 4.0% for type 1 (p = 0.09); 7.6% versus 1.7% for type 2 (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Many trials have suboptimal control arms, even in journals with high-impact factors, leading to suboptimal treatment of control patients and biased evaluation of trial results.

Second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with germline BRCA1-2 pathogenic variants (gBRCA1-2pv).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) harbouring germline BRCA1-2 pathogenic variants (gBRCA1-2pv) is a distinct nosological entity. Information on second-line therapy (2LT) outcome in this setting is lacking. METHODS: Data of gBRCA1-2pv metastatic PDAC patients treated with chemotherapy were collected. A primary analysis of 2LT RECIST response, median progression-free survival (mPFS2) and overall survival (mOS2), was performed. A secondary analysis addressed the impact of timing of platinum introduction on the outcome of patients receiving at least a first-line combination chemotherapy (1LT). RESULTS: Eighty-four gBRCA1-2pv metastatic PDAC patients were enrolled. The primary analysis, including 43 patients, highlighted a significant improvement of mPFS2 and a doubled response rate, in the platinum-based 2LT subgroup as compared to the platinum-free (8.8 versus 3.7 months, p = 0.013). Seventy-seven patients were included in the secondary analysis. Median PFS1 of 3- and 4-drug platinum-based 1LT significantly outperformed both platinum-free combinations and platinum-based doublets (11.4 versus 6.4 versus 7.9 months, p = 0.01). Albeit still immature, data on mOS paralleled those on mPFS. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the beneficial role of platinum agents in gBRCA1-2pv PDAC patients also in second-line treatment setting. However, our data suggest that early use of 3- and 4-drug platinum-based chemotherapy combinations provides a survival outcome advantage.

Comparing T Cell Subsets in Broncho-Alveolar Lavage (BAL) and Peripheral Blood in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer (LC) tissue for immunological characterization is often scarce. We explored and compared T cell characteristics between broncho-alveolar lavage from tumor affected (t-BAL) and contralateral lung (cl-BAL), with matched peripheral blood (PB). METHODS: BAL and PB were collected during bronchoscopy for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes in patients with monolateral primary lesion. RESULTS: Of 33 patients undergoing BAL and PB sampling, 21 had histologically-confirmed LC. Most cases were locally-advanced or metastatic non-small cell LC. T cell characteristics were not significantly different in t-BAL vs. cl-BAL. Compared to PB, CD8 T cells in BAL presented features of immune activation and exhaustion (high PD-1, low IFN-g production). Accordingly, regulatory CD4 T cells were also higher in BAL vs. PB. When dichotomizing T cell density in t-BAL in high and low, we found that PD-L1 expression in LC was associated with T cell density in t-BAL. T-BAL with high T cell density had higher %IFN-g+CD8 T cells and lower %T-regs. CONCLUSION: In BAL from advanced LC patients, T cells present features of exhaustion. T cells in t-BAL could be the best surrogate of tumor-infiltrating T cell, and future studies should evaluate T cell phenotype and density as potential biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy outcome.

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.

Adoption of multiple primary endpoints in phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Trial designs using multiple primary endpoints (MPEs) are increasing in phase III cancer trials. Our objectives were to describe the incidence of MPEs in recently published phase III trials testing systemic treatments in patients with advanced cancer; the main characteristics of trials adopting MPEs; the presence of mature results for all endpoints in the primary publication; consistency between results of each endpoint and authors' conclusions. METHODS: Articles of randomised phase III trials conducted in patients with advanced cancer, published between 2017 and 2020, were retrieved from PubMed. The main outcome was the proportion of trials with MPEs. In principle, according to regulatory agencies, we considered two distinct cases: (i) MPEs correspond to 'multiple chances' for the success of experimental treatment, needing adjustment for multiplicity, and (ii) a positive result depends on the success in all MPEs ('co-primary' endpoints). RESULTS: Out of 235 eligible trials, 27 trials (12%) adopted MPE, mostly overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The proportion of trials with MPEs increased over time, from 6% in 2017 to 20% in 2020 (p = 0.025). MPEs were adopted in 16% of for-profit trials versus 4% of non-profit trials (p = 0.006). The proportion of trials adopting MPEs was particularly high with immunotherapy (53%, p < 0.00001). Out of 27 trials with MPEs, 10 (37%) adopted an explicit definition of 'co-primary' endpoints, but only 1/10 declared the positivity of both endpoints critical for interpretation. Most trials (23, 85%) planned correction for multiplicity. Of 21 publications with positive conclusions, only 12 had a statistically significant positive result in both primary endpoints. In four cases (15%), positive conclusions were based on PFS results alone. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of MPEs in randomised trials in oncology is quite common. Only a minority of trials respect recommendations by regulatory agencies about the adoption of MPEs, definition of 'co-primary' endpoints and correction for multiplicity.

A review of molecularly targeted therapy in biliary tract carcinoma: what is the next step?

Patients with unresectable biliary tract carcinomas (BTCs) have a poor prognosis with a median overall survival of fewer than 12 months following systemic chemotherapy. In recent years, the identification of distinct molecular alterations with corresponding targeted therapies is modifying this therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this review is to present an overview of targeted therapy for BTCs, describing published available data and potential future challenges in ongoing trials. From clinicaltrials.gov online database all ongoing trials for BTCs (any stage) was examinated in July 2021, and data regarding study design, disease characteristics and type of treatments were registered. Oncogenic-driven therapy (targeted therapy) was investigated in 67 trials. According to research, 15 ongoing trials (22.4%) are investigating fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor (FGFR)-inhibitors in BTCs. Three (18.7%) are open-label randomized multicenter phase 3 trials, 8 (50%) are single-arm phase two trials, and 4 (25%) are phase one studies. Twelve (17.9%) clinical trials dealt with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1/2 targeting therapy either in combination with cisplatin (Cis) and gemcitabine (Gem) as first-line treatment for BTCs or in monotherapy in patients with IDH1 mutant advanced malignancies, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Nine (13.4%) clinical trials tested human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 2 targeting therapy. Four (44.4%) studies are phase I trials, two (22.2%) are phase I/II trials, and three (33.3%) phase II trials. Rare molecular alterations in BTCs, such as anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros oncogene1 receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1), and v-RAF murine sarcoma viral oncogene homologue B1 (BRAF), are also under investigation in a few trials. Forty-four clinical trials (17.2%) are investigating not oncogenic-driven multitarget therapy like multireceptor tyrosin kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenetic agents. In conclusion, this review shows that BTCs management is experiencing important innovations, especially in biomarker-based patient selection and in the new emerging therapeutic approach. Many ongoing trials could answer questions regarding the role of molecular inhibitors leading to new therapeutic frontiers for molecular subcategories of BTCs.