A phase II/III randomized clinical trial of CisPlatin plUs Gemcitabine and Nabpaclitaxel (GAP) as pReoperative chemotherapy versus immediate resection in patIents with resecTable BiliarY Tract Cancers (BTC) at high risk for recurrence: PURITY study.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare and lethal cancers, with a 5-year survival inferior to 20%(1-3). The only potential curative treatment is surgical resection. However, despite complex surgical procedures that have a remarkable risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality, the 5-year survival rate after radical surgery (R0) is 20-40% and recurrence rates are up to ~ 75%(4-6). Up to ~ 40% of patients relapse within 12 months after resection, and half of these patient will recur systemically(4-6). There is no standard of care for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in resectable BTC, but retrospective reports suggest its potential benefit (7, 8). METHODS: PURITY is a no-profit, multicentre, randomized phase II/III trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the combination of gemcitabine, cisplatin and nabpaclitaxel (GAP) as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable BTC at high risk for recurrence. Primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant GAP followed by surgery as compared to upfront surgery, in terms of 12-month progression-free survival for the phase II part and of progression free survival (PFS) for the phase III study. Key Secondary objectives are event free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival, (RFS), overall survival (OS), R0/R1/R2 resection rate, quality of life (QoL), overall response rate (ORR), resectability. Safety analyses will include toxicity rate and perioperative morbidity and mortality rate. Exploratory studies including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in archival tumor tissues and longitudinal ctDNA analysis are planned to identify potential biomarkers of primary resistance and prognosis. DISCUSSION: Considering the poor prognosis of resected BTC experiencing early tumor recurrence and the negative prognostic impact of R1/R2 resections, PURITY study is based on the rationale that NAC may improve R0 resection rates and ultimately patients' outcomes. Furthermore, NAC should allow early eradication of microscopic distant metastases, undetectable by imaging but already present at the time of diagnosis and avoid mortality and morbidity associated with resection for patients with rapid progression or worsening general condition during neoadjuvant therapy. The randomized PURITY study will evaluate whether patients affected by BTC at high risk from recurrence benefit from a neoadjuvant therapy with GAP regimen as compared to immediate surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PURITY is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06037980) and EuCT(2023-503295-25-00).

Different Genomic Clusters Impact on Responses in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer Treated with Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Plus Durvalumab.

BACKGROUND: The results reported in the TOPAZ-1 phase III trial led to the approval of the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine with durvalumab as the new first-line standard of care for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. OBJECTIVE: We performed a clustering analysis to classify patients into different groups based on their mutation profile, correlating the results of the analysis with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We selected 51 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with the combination of chemotherapy and durvalumab and who were screened using the next-generation sequencing-based FoundationOne gene panel. We conducted mutation-based clustering of tumors and a survival analysis. RESULTS: Three main clusters were identified. Cluster 1 is mostly characterized by mutations in genes belonging to the chromatin modification pathway, altered in 100% of patients. Cluster 2 is characterized by the alteration of several pathways, among which DNA damage control, chromatin modification, RTK/RAS, cell-cycle apoptosis, TP53, and PI3K were the most affected. Finally, most altered pathways in cluster 3 were RTK/RAS and cell-cycle apoptosis. Overall response rate was 4/13 (31%), 12/24 (50%), and 0/10 (0%) in cluster 1, cluster 2, and cluster 3, respectively, and the difference between the three clusters was statistically significant (p = 0.0188). CONCLUSIONS: By grouping patients into three clusters with distinct molecular and genomic alterations, our analysis showed that patients included in cluster 2 had higher overall response rates, whereas patients included in cluster 3 had no objective response. Further investigations on larger and external cohorts are needed in order to validate our results.

A phase II study evaluating the efficacy of enzalutamide and the role of liquid biopsy for evaluation of ARv7 in mCRPC patients with measurable metastases including visceral disease (Excalibur study).

Background: Up to 30% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) develop visceral metastases, which are associated with a poor prognosis. Objectives: Efficacy of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients with measurable metastases, including visceral and/or extra-regional lymph nodes. Methods: In this phase II multicenter study, patients with mCRPC and measurable metastases received enzalutamide as the first line. Primary endpoint: 3-month (mo) disease control rate (DCR) defined as the proportion of patients with complete (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoint: safety. Exploratory endpoint: the association between ARv7 splicing variants in basal circulating tumor cell (CTC)-enriched blood samples and treatment response/resistance using the AdnaTest ProstateCancerSelect kit and the AdnaTest ProstateCancer Panel AR-V7. Results: From March 2017 to January 2021, 68 patients were enrolled. One patient never started treatment. Median age: 72 years. A total of 52 patients (78%) received enzalutamide as a first line for mCRPC. The median follow-up was 32 months. At the 3-month assessment, 24 patients presented an SD, 1 patient achieved a CR, and 23 patients had a PR (3-mo-DCR of 72%). Discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), disease-related death, or disease progression occurred in 9%, 6%, and 48% of patients. All patients reported at least one grade (G) 1-2 AE: the most common were fatigue (49%) and hypertension (33%). Six G3 AEs were reported: two hypertension, one seizure, one fatigue, one diarrhea, and one headache. Basal detection of ARv7 was significantly associated with poor treatment response (p = 0.034) and a nonsignificant association (p = 0.15) was observed between ARv7 detection and response assessments. At month 3, ARv7 was detected in 57%, 25%, and 15% of patients undergoing progressive disease, SD, and PR, respectively. Conclusion: The study met its primary endpoint, showing the efficacy of enzalutamide in men with mCRPC and measurable metastatic lesions in visceral and/or lymph node sites. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03103724. First Posted: 6 April 2017. First patient enrollment: 19 April 2017.

NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and Gemcitabine With Nab-Paclitaxel as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported. Objective: To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP. Data Sources: After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023. Study Selection: Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines. Data Extraction And Synthesis: Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates. Results: A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.

Safety and antitumor activity of metformin plus lanreotide in patients with advanced gastro-intestinal or lung neuroendocrine tumors: the phase Ib trial MetNET2.

In retrospective studies, metformin use has been associated with better clinical outcomes in diabetic patients with advanced, well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WDNETs). However, prospective evidence of metformin safety and activity is lacking. Here, we conducted the first-in-human phase Ib MetNET2 trial to investigate the safety and antitumor activity of metformin in combination with the somatostatin analog lanreotide autogel (ATG) in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients with advanced WDNETs of the gastrointestinal (GI) or thoracic tract. Enrolled patients received lanreotide ATG 120 mg plus oral metformin, up to a maximum dosage of 2550 mg/day. We enrolled 20 patients, of whom 18 (90%) and 2 (10%) had WDNETs of the GI and thoracic tract, respectively. Fourteen patients (70%) were non-diabetic. With a 5% incidence of SAEs, the study met its primary objective of demonstrating treatment safety. With a median follow-up of 39 months (95% CI 28-NE), median PFS was 24 months (95% CI 16-NE), with 12-month and 24-month PFS probability of 75% (95% CI 58-97) and 49% (95% CI 31-77), respectively. We found no statistically significant PFS differences between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Among exploratory analyses, the presence of tumor genomic alterations in DNA damage pathways was associated with trend towards worse PFS, whereas a precocious reduction of HOMA-IR index and plasma cholesterol concentration showed a trend towards an association with better PFS. In conclusion, metformin plus lanreotide ATG is a safe and well tolerated combination treatment that is associated with promising antitumor activity in both non-diabetic and diabetic patients with WDNETs, and that warrants further investigation in larger clinical trials.

Locoregional Treatment in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Which Treatment for Which Patient?

For unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC), different locoregional treatments (LRT) could be proposed to patients, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or transarterial treatments, depending on patient and tumor characteristics and local expertise. These different techniques of LRT have not been compared in a randomized clinical trial; most of the relevant studies are retrospective and not comparative. The aim of this narrative review is to help clinicians in their everyday practice discuss the pros and cons of each LRT, depending on the individual characteristics of their patients.

Exploring the Role of Immunotherapy-Based Treatments for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Novel Driver Alterations.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) single agent or combined with chemotherapy (CT-IO) is the standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) without driver alterations. IO efficacy in patients with novel driver alterations is not well reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of aNSCLC patients treated with IO or CT-IO in any line from January 2016 to September 2022 were retrospectively collected. Patients harboring novel driver alterations (m-cohort), including MET exon 14 skipping, BRAF (V600E or atypical), RET rearrangements, HER2 point mutations/exon 20 insertions or uncommon EGFR mutations/EGFR exon 20 insertions, and wild type patients (wt-cohort) were eligible. Clinico-pathological data were extracted from Institutional databases and compared through chi square or Fisher's exact test. Survivals were estimated through Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: m-cohort and wt-cohort included 84 and 444 patients, respectively. Progression free survival (PFS) was 5.53 vs. 4.57 months (P= .846) and overall survival (OS) was 25.1 vs. 9.37 months, (P < .0001) for m-cohort compared to wt-cohort. Within the m-cohort, BRAF atypical mutations had the better outcomes (Overall Response Rate [ORR], PFS), targeted agents timing did not affect response to IO and CT-IO had better ORR and disease control rate (DCR) compared to IO single agent (P = .0160 and P = .0152). In the PD-L1≥50% group, first line IO single agent resulted in inferior ORR (P = .027) and PFS (P = .022) in m-cohort compared to wt-cohort. CONCLUSION: IO based treatments seem not detrimental for patients harboring novel driver alteration. Adding CT could improve modest responses to IO alone. Confirmation on larger datasets is required.

A multicenter phase 2 single arm study of cabozantinib in patients with advanced or unresectable renal cell carcinoma pre-treated with one immune-checkpoint inhibitor: The BREAKPOINT trial (Meet-Uro trial 03).

BACKGROUND: First-line therapies based on immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly improved survival of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Cabozantinib was shown to target kinases involved in immune-escape and to prolong survival in patients pre-treated with tyrosine-kinase-inhibitors (TKIs). The impact of ICIs combinations in first line on subsequent therapies is still unclear. METHODS: This is an open label, multicenter, single arm, phase II study designed to assess activity, safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in mRCC patients progressed after an adjuvant or first line anti-Programmed Death (PD)-1/PD-Ligand (PD-L) 1-based therapy. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. RESULTS: 31 patients were included in the analysis. After a median (m) follow-up of 11.9 months, mPFS was 8.3 months (90%CI 3.9-17.4) and mOS was 13.8 months (95%CI 7.7-29.0). ORR was 37.9% with an additional 13 patients achieving disease stability. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 47% of patients, including more frequently creatine phosphokinase (CPK) serum level elevation, neutropenia, hyponatremia, diarrhea, hand-food syndrome, oral mucositis and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The BREAKPOINT trial met its primary endpoint showing that cabozantinib as second line therapy after ICIs was active in mRCC. Safety profile was manageable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03463681 - A Study of CaBozantinib in Patients With Advanced or Unresectable Renal cEll cArcinoma (BREAKPOINT) - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03463681.

Optimal Choice of Adjuvant Treatment for Renal Cell Carcinoma Following Nephrectomy.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the fourteenth most common cancer worldwide. In about 55% of cases, it is diagnosed at a localised and/or locally advanced stage and therefore amenable to a curative approach. Although nephrectomy still represents the cornerstone of non-metastatic RCC (nmRCC) treatment, a relapse is observed in about 25-30% of patients undergoing curative surgery. Prognosis is drastically influenced by lymph nodal involvement. After the first disappointing results with a cytokine-based strategy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were tested as adjuvant agents. Despite their efficacy in the metastatic setting, results in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) are not unequivocal and the overall survival (OS) benefit has not been demonstrated. Moreover, their toxicity profile induced a remarkable percentage of patients to discontinue the treatment. On the contrary, the KEYNOTE-564 trial showed the benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo in terms of DFS with promising results in term of OS. Patients included were at intermediate or high risk of relapse, or patients with no evidence of disease after metastasectomy (M1 NED). The updated analysis presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genito-Urinary (ASCO GU) 2022 confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab versus placebo over time, although OS data are still immature. A longer follow-up and the several ongoing trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) will provide further data about adjuvant immuno-oncology (IO). Furthermore, the patients' selection based on clinical or biological features will be crucial in order to identify who benefits most from treatments.

Platinum sensitivity in patients with IDH1/2 mutated vs wild-type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A propensity score-based study.

Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)1/2 mutations are the most frequent druggable alterations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), reported in ~20% of cases. Preclinical evidence indicates that these mutations are associated with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which could be exploited as a target for platinum chemotherapy (ChT) and PARP inhibitors. However, the role of IDH1/2 mutations as surrogate biomarkers for platinum efficacy is unknown. We conducted a multicenter, propensity score-matched analysis to investigate the impact of IDH1/2 mutations on progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) in patients with iCCA treated with platinum-based ChT. An exploratory comparison of complex HRD estimates between IDH1/2 mutated and wild-type tumors from TCGA was also performed. A total of 120 cases were matched in a 1:1 ratio (60 IDH1/2 mutant and 60 wild-type). No differences were observed for platinum-based PFS (7.7 vs 7.3 months, P = .970), DCR (66.1% vs 74.1%, P = .361) and ORR (27.8% vs 25.0%, P = .741). IDH1/2 mutations showed mutual exclusivity with genomic alterations in ATM, BRCA2, MST1R, NF1, FGFR2 and CDKN2A/B losses, respectively, with no clear survival and response differences. Among TCGA tumors, IDH1/2 mutated CCA did not show higher HRD compared to wild-type cases. IDH1/2 mutations are not associated with increased sensitivity to platinum-based ChT in iCCA patients. Deeper genomic sequencing is needed to elucidate the HRD phenotype in IDH1/2 mutant iCCA and exploit its therapeutic vulnerabilities.

Negative Ultraselection of Patients With RAS/BRAF Wild-Type, Microsatellite-Stable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Anti-EGFR-Based Therapy.

PURPOSE: Several uncommon genomic alterations beyond RAS and BRAFV600E mutations drive primary resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Our PRESSING panel (including PIK3CA exon 20/AKT1/PTEN mutations, ERBB2/MET amplifications, gene fusions, and microsatellite instability-high status) represented a paradigm of negative hyperselection with more precise tailoring of EGFR blockade. However, a modest proportion of hyperselected mCRC has intrinsic resistance potentially driven by even rarer genomic alterations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective data set at three Italian Academic Hospitals included 650 patients with mCRC with comprehensive genomic profiling by FoundationOne CDx and treated with anti-EGFRs. PRESSING2 panel alterations were selected on the basis of previous clinico-biologic studies and included NTRKs, ERBB3, NF1, MAP2K1/2/4, AKT2 pathogenic mutations; PTEN/NF1 loss; ERBB3, FGFR2, IGF1R, KRAS, ARAF, and AKT1-2 amplification; and EGFR rearrangements. These were collectively associated with outcomes in patients with hyperselected disease, ie, RAS/BRAF wild-type, PRESSING-negative, and microsatellite stable. RESULTS: Among 162 hyperselected patients, 24 (15%) had PRESSING2 alterations, which were mutually exclusive except in two samples and were numerically higher in right-sided versus left-sided cancers (28% v 13%; P = .149). Independently of sidedness and other factors, patients with PRESSING2-positive status had significantly worse progression-free survival and overall survival compared with PRESSING2-negative ones (median progression-free survival 6.4 v 12.8 months, adjusted hazard ratio 4.19 [95% CI, 2.58 to 6.79]; median overall survival: 22.6 v 49.9 months, adjusted hazard ratio 2.98 [95% CI, 1.49 to 5.96]). The combined analysis of primary tumor sidedness and PRESSING2 status allowed us to better stratify outcomes. CONCLUSION: Negative ultraselection warrants further investigation with the aim of maximizing the benefit of EGFR blockade strategies in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type, microsatellite stable mCRC.

MGMT inactivation as a new biomarker in patients with advanced biliary tract cancers.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) have poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. The impact of O6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) inactivation in advanced BTC patients is not established. We investigated the prevalence, prognostic, and predictive impact of MGMT inactivation in two multicenter cohorts. MGMT inactivation was assessed through PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in an Italian cohort; the results were then externally validated using RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data from the BTC subcohort of the Molecularly Aided Stratification for Tumor Eradication Research (MASTER) precision oncology program of the National Center for Tumor Diseases Heidelberg and the German Cancer Consortium. Among 164 Italian cases, 18% presented MGMT promoter hypermethylation (> 14%) and 73% had negative MGMT protein expression. Both were associated with worse overall survival (OS; HR 2.31; P < 0.001 and HR 1.99, P = 0.012, respectively). In the MASTER cohort, patients with lower MGMT mRNA expression showed significantly poorer OS (median OS [mOS] 20.4 vs 31.7 months, unadjusted HR 1.89; P = 0.043). Our results suggest that MGMT inactivation is a frequent epigenetic alteration in BTC, with a significant prognostic impact, and provide the rationale to explore DNA-damaging agents in MGMT-inactivated BTCs.

A Novel Prognostic Tool in Western and Eastern Biliary Tract Cancer Patients Treated in First-line Setting: the ECSIPOT Index.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The need to estimate prognosis of advanced BTC (aBTC) patients treated with first-line chemotherapy is compelling. The aim of the study is to evaluate the ECSIPOT (psECogSIiPnigOT) index, influenced by PECS (PsECogSii) index, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and GOT. METHODS: This international study was conducted on a training cohort of 126 patients and in three validation cohorts, both European and Korean. ECSIPOT index formula: (PECS:0 = 1 point; PECS:1 = 1.4 points; PECS:2 = 3.2 points) + (PNI > 36.7 = 1 point; PNI < 36.7 = 2 points) + (GOT < 100 = 1 point; GOT > 100 = 2 points). Event-time distributions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival curves were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: In the training cohort, mOS was 12.9, 6.3, and 2.8 months for patients with ECSIPOT-0, ECSIPOT-1, and ECSIPOT-2, respectively (ECSIPOT-0: HR 1; ECSIPOT-1: HR 2.11; ECSIPOT-2: HR 4.93; p < 0.0001). In the first validation cohort, mOS was 11.5, 7.3, and 3.3 months for ECSIPOT-0, ECSIPOT-1, and ECSIPOT-2, respectively (ECSIPOT-0: HR 1; ECSIPOT-1: HR 1.74; ECSIPOT-2: HR 3.41; p < 0.0001). In the second validation cohort, mOS was 25.2, 12.5, and 3.0 months for ECSIPOT-0, ECSIPOT-1, and ECSIPOT-2, respectively (ECSIPOT-0: HR = 1; ECSIPOT-1: HR 2.33; ECSIPOT-2: HR 8.46; p < 0.0001). In the third validation cohort, mOS was 11.8, 8.1, and 4.6 months for ECSIPOT-0, ECSIPOT-1, and ECSIPOT-2, respectively (ECSIPOT-0: HR = 1; ECSIPOT-1: HR 1.47; ECSIPOT-2: HR 3.17; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis in all cohorts confirmed the ECSIPOT index as an independent prognostic factor for OS. CONCLUSION: The easy assessment and good risk-stratification performance make the ECSIPOT index a promising tool to comprehensively estimate the prognosis of aBTC patients.

Real-world data to build explainable trustworthy artificial intelligence models for prediction of immunotherapy efficacy in NSCLC patients.

Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods are being increasingly investigated as a means to generate predictive models applicable in the clinical practice. In this study, we developed a model to predict the efficacy of immunotherapy (IO) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using eXplainable AI (XAI) Machine Learning (ML) methods. Methods: We prospectively collected real-world data from patients with an advanced NSCLC condition receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) either as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy. With regards to six different outcomes - Disease Control Rate (DCR), Objective Response Rate (ORR), 6 and 24-month Overall Survival (OS6 and OS24), 3-months Progression-Free Survival (PFS3) and Time to Treatment Failure (TTF3) - we evaluated five different classification ML models: CatBoost (CB), Logistic Regression (LR), Neural Network (NN), Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM). We used the Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) values to explain model predictions. Results: Of 480 patients included in the study 407 received immunotherapy and 73 chemo- and immunotherapy. From all the ML models, CB performed the best for OS6 and TTF3, (accuracy 0.83 and 0.81, respectively). CB and LR reached accuracy of 0.75 and 0.73 for the outcome DCR. SHAP for CB demonstrated that the feature that strongly influences models' prediction for all three outcomes was Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR). Performance Status (ECOG-PS) was an important feature for the outcomes OS6 and TTF3, while PD-L1, Line of IO and chemo-immunotherapy appeared to be more important in predicting DCR. Conclusions: In this study we developed a ML algorithm based on real-world data, explained by SHAP techniques, and able to accurately predict the efficacy of immunotherapy in sets of NSCLC patients.

Characteristics and Treatment Challenges of Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCC) comprise several rare and poorly described diseases, often characterized by bad prognosis and with no standard treatments available. The gap in their clinical management is linked to the poor molecular characterization in handling the treatment of non clear-cell RCC with untailored therapies. Due to their rarity, non-clear RCC are in fact under-represented in prospective randomized trials. Thus, treatment choices are based on extrapolating results from clear cell RCC trials, retrospective data, or case reports. Over the last two decades, various options have been considered as the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC), including angiogenesis inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors, other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), as well as MET inhibitors and mammalian targeting of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. More recently, the therapeutic armamentarium has been enriched with immunotherapy, alone or in combination with targeted agents that have been shown to significantly improve outcomes of mRCC patients, if compared to TKI single-agent. It has been widely proven that non-clear cell RCC is a morphologically and clinically distinct entity from its clear cell counterpart but more knowledge about its biology is certainly needed. Histology-specific collaborative trials are in fact now emerging to investigate different treatments for non-clear cell RCC. This review summarizes pathogenetic mechanisms of non-clear cell RCC, the evolution of treatment paradigms over the last few decades, with a focus on immunotherapy-based trials, and future potential treatment options.

Beyond First-Line Immunotherapy: Potential Therapeutic Strategies Based on Different Pattern Progressions: Oligo and Systemic Progression.

First-line immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy has deeply changed the treatment landscape and prognosis in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients with no targetable alterations. Nonetheless, a percentage of patients progressed on ICI as monotherapy or combinations. Open questions remain on patients' selection, the identification of biomarkers of primary resistance to immunotherapy and the treatment strategies to overcome secondary resistance to first-line immunotherapy. Local ablative approaches are the main therapeutic strategies in oligoprogressive disease, and their role is emerging in patients treated with immunotherapy. Many therapeutic strategies can be adapted in aNSCLC patients with systemic progression to personalize the treatment approach according to re-characterization of the tumors, previous ICI response, and type of progression. This review's aim is to highlight and discuss the current and potential therapeutic approaches beyond first-line ICI-based therapy in aNSCLC patients based on the pattern of disease progression (oligoprogression versus systemic progression).

Multidrug regimens for treatment of older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Older patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPDAC) are under-represented in clinical trials. METHODS: Our single-center, retrospective study enrolled MPDAC patients ≥ 70 treated with chemotherapy RESULTS: 105 patients were divided in groups based on the received treatments: 44 gemcitabine or capecitabine monotherapy (A), 34 nabpaclitaxel-gemcitabine (B) 27 4-drugs combinations (gemcitabine, cisplatin, capecitabine plus either nab-paclitaxel or epirubicin or docetaxel) (C). Group A: median age was 78 (70-87) and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥80 was found in 84% of patients; Group B: median age 77 (71-84) and KPS ≥ 80 in 88% of patients; Group C: median age 73 (70-78) and KPS ≥ 80 in 93% of patients. Median OS was 7.9, 11.7 and 14.2 months in group A, B and C respectively; 1 and 2-year OS were 27% and 8% in group A; 44% and 5% in group B; 52% and 22% in group C. When lung metastatic only patients were excluded, patients <75 and ≥ 75 had similar OS in group A (6.4 vs 5.6 months) and in group B (12.3 vs 11.1 months). In group B grade 3 thrombocytopenia, fatigue and peripheral neuropathy were more frequent in patients ≥ 75. CONCLUSIONS: In older patients, combination chemotherapy shows acceptable feasibility and promising efficacy.

COVID-19 risk for patients undergoing anticancer treatment at the outpatient clinic of the National Cancer Institute of Milan: the COVINT study.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with cancer are regarded as a highly vulnerable population. Overall, those requiring hospital admission for treatment administration are potentially exposed to a higher risk of infection and worse outcome given the multiple in-hospital exposures and the treatment immunosuppressive effects. METHODS: COVINT is an observational study assessing COVID-19 incidence among patients receiving anticancer treatment in the outpatient clinic of the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano. All consecutive patients with non-haematological malignancies treated with intravenous or subcutaneous/intramuscular anticancer therapy in the outpatient clinic were enrolled. The primary endpoint is the rate of occurrence of COVID-19. Secondary endpoints included the rate of COVID-19-related deaths and treatment interruptions. The association between clinical and biological characteristics and COVID-19 occurrence is also evaluated. COVID-19 diagnosis is defined as (1) certain if confirmed by reverse transcriptase PCR assay of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS); (2) suspected in case of new symptoms or CT scan evidence of interstitial pneumonia with negative/not performed NPS; (3) negative in case of neither symptoms nor radiological evidence. RESULTS: In the first 2 months (16 February-10 April 2020) of observation, 1081 patients were included. Of these, 11 (1%) were confirmed and 73 (6.7%) suspected for COVID-19. No significant differences in terms of cancer and treatment type emerged between the three subgroups. Prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors was adopted in 5.3%, 2.7% and 0% of COVID-19-free, COVID-19-suspected and COVID-19-confirmed patients (p=0.003). Overall, 96 (8.9%) patients delayed treatment as a precaution for the pandemic. Among the 11 confirmed cases, 6 (55%) died of COVID-19 complications, and anticancer treatment was restarted in only one. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic peak, accurate protective measures successfully resulted in low rates of COVID-19 diagnosis, although with high lethality. Prospective patients' surveillance will continue with NPS and serology testing to provide a more comprehensive epidemiological picture, a biological insight on the impact of cytotoxic treatments on the immune response, and to protect patients and healthcare workers.