Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. METHODS: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Review of Targeted and Immune Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common cancer globally and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Despite the established efficacy of screening programs for at-risk individuals, most patients are diagnosed at later stages of disease, wherein the tumor characteristics or liver disease progressions do not allow for curative interventions. Many cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents have been tested in patients with advanced disease with disappointing outcomes and poor tolerance; therefore, no standard systemic therapy emerged until the approval of sorafenib in 2006. CONCLUSION: Despite the toxicity and low response rate, sorafenib had shown a significant survival benefit in phase III clinical trials, thus encouraging clinical research aimed at advancing the field of molecular therapy. Disrupted signaling pathways related to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include the Wnt/ß-catenin, Ras/Raf/MAPK, phosphatidyl inositol 3-kinase/Akt/mechanistic target of rapamycin, hepatocyte growth factor/c-mesenchymal-epithelial transition, IGF, vascular endothelial growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factor pathways, and a variety of agents targeting these pathways are currently under investigation. Additionally, better comprehension of the complex mechanisms underlying the ability of tumor cells to escape immune surveillance has led to impressive results with immunotherapy in many types of cancer, and this treatment strategy is currently being developed for HCC patients. Previous and ongoing targeted therapy and immunotherapy trials for HCC are discussed in this review.

Impressive response to immunotherapy in a metastatic gastric cancer patient: could somatic copy number alterations help patient selection?

BACKGROUND: Metastatic gastric cancer (GC) is an incurable and aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. Immunotherapy is an attractive approach for treating patients with cancer, and studies using immunotherapy have shown promising results in melanoma, kidney and non-small cell lung cancers, among others. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a 50-year-old woman with metastatic GC whose cancer had progressed after first-line chemotherapy and who received pembrolizumab as an experimental treatment. Molecular analyses showed that her tumor was negative for PD-L1 expression, contained microsatellite stability and several focal somatic copy number alterations. The patient experienced an almost complete response after eleven cycles of treatment. Her symptoms related to the disease disappeared, and the medication was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reports of promising responses in some patients, immunotherapy is not suitable for all patients; therefore, we explored the molecular characteristics that could explain the exceptional response and clinical benefits observed in our patient.

Perioperative chemotherapy with and without high-dose methotrexate in adult osteosarcoma.

Treatment of adult osteosarcoma (AOS) includes perioperative chemotherapy and surgery. Standard chemotherapy consists of cisplatin (CP) and doxorubicin (DOX). Although considered the standard of care for pediatric patients, high-dose methotrexate (HDM) remains controversial in adults. We aimed to evaluate the role of HDM in AOS treated with curative intent. This study included patients with AOS who received perioperative chemotherapy with DOX and CP (group 1; N=16) and DOX, CP, and HDM (group 2; N=10). The primary endpoint was grade 3 or superior toxicities. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival. Despite lower average age (35.0±12.1 vs. 18.9±2.1 years), group 2 presented more grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (0 vs 50%) and mucositis (0 vs 40%), whereas group 1 presented more grade 3-4 neutropenia (43.75 vs 40%). No grade 3-4 renal toxicities occurred. Two grade 5 toxicities occurred in group 2, both after the first HDM cycle. Disease-free survival (4.38±0.61 vs. 2.3±0.54 years, P=0.228) and OS (4.70±0.56 vs 2.52±0.57 years, P=0.107) were not statistically different, but presented a trend toward better outcomes in group 1. The 4-year OS was 65.6 and 32.8% for groups 1 and 2, respectively. In conclusion, HDM was associated with greater severe and lethal toxicity when added to CP and DOX in AOS. Also, it does not seem to impact on treatment efficacy. These data do not support the use of HDM for the perioperative treatment of AOS.