Restricted Mean Survival Time-Can It Be a New Tool in Assessing the Survival of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors?

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer (LC) is the first and most lethal cancer in the world; identifying new methods to treat it, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), is needed. ICIs treatment is very effective, but it comes bundled with a series of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Restricted mean survival time (RMST) is an alternative tool for assessing the patients' survival when the proportional hazard assumption (PH) fails. METHODS: We included in this analytical cross-sectional observational survey patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), treated for at least 6 months with ICIs in the first- and second-line settings. Using RMST, we estimated the overall survival (OS) of patients by dividing them into two groups. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of the prognostic factors on OS. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included (68.4% men, mean age 63.8), and 34/79 (43%) presented irAEs. The OS RMST of the entire group was 30.91 months, with a survival median of 22 months. Thirty-two out of seventy-nine (40.5%) died before we ended our study. The OS RMST and death percentage favored the patients who presented irAEs (long-rank test, p = 0.036). The OS RMST of patients with irAEs was 35.7 months, with a number of deaths of 12/34 (35.29%), while the OS RMST of the patients without irAEs was 17 months, with a number of deaths of 20/45 (44.44%). The OS RMST by the line of treatment favored the first line of treatment. In this group, the presence of irAEs significantly impacted the survival of these patients (p = 0.0083). Moreover, patients that experienced low-grade irAEs had a better OS RMST. This result has to be cautiously regarded because of the small number of patients stratified according to the grades of irAEs. The prognostic factors for the survival were: the presence of irAEs, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and the number of organs affected by metastasis. The risk of dying was 2.13 times higher for patients without irAEs than for the patients who presented irAEs, (CI) 95% of 1.03 to 4.39. Moreover, by increasing the ECOG performance status by one point, the risk of death increased by 2.28 times, with a CI 95% of 1.46 to 3.58, while the involvement of more metastatic organs was associated with a 1.60 times increase in the death risk, with a CI 95% of 1.09 to 2.36. Age and the type of tumor were not predictive for this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The RMST is a new tool that helps researchers to better address the survival in studies with ICIs treatment where the PH fails, and the long-rank test is less efficient due to the existence of the long-term responses and delayed treatment effects. Patients with irAEs have a better prognosis than those without irAEs in the first-line settings. The ECOG performance status and the number of organs affected by metastasis must be considered when selecting patients for ICIs treatment.

Does the Rechallenge with Another CDK 4/6 Inhibitor in Breast Cancer Work? A Case Report and Literature Review.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and endocrine therapy are the gold standards for systemic therapy for patients with hormone-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer. Following progression, no prospective randomized data exist to help guide second-line treatment. Moreover, there is a scarcity of data on rechallenge treatment strategies with another CDK4/6 inhibitor after prior limiting toxicity. We report a real-world experience of rechallenging with abemaciclib after the prior reaction of grade 4 liver toxicity to ribociclib, with high transaminases values of more than 27 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) and unexpected grade 3 neutropenia and diarrhea after a few months of abemaciclib. After two years of treatment, the patient had stable oncological disease, with normal complete blood count, hepatic enzymes, and a very good performance status. We believe that our clinical case, along with others gathered from all around the world, will help with the consolidation of an unmet clinical need to readjust the treatment after experiencing toxicity to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Mechanisms of Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibitors and Predictive Biomarkers of Response in HR+/HER2-Metastatic Breast Cancer-A Review of the Literature.

The latest and newest discoveries for advanced and metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer are the three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in association with endocrine therapy (ET). However, even if this treatment revolutionized the world and continued to be the first-line treatment choice for these patients, it also has its limitations, caused by de novo or acquired drug resistance which leads to inevitable progression after some time. Thus, an understanding of the overview of the targeted therapy which represents the gold therapy for this subtype of cancer is essential. The full potential of CDK4/6i is yet to be known, with many trials ongoing to expand their utility to other breast cancer subtypes, such as early breast cancer, and even to other cancers. Our research establishes the important idea that resistance to combined therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) can be due to resistance to endocrine therapy, to treatment with CDK4/6i, or to both. Individuals' responses to treatment are based mostly on genetic features and molecular markers, as well as the tumor's hallmarks; therefore, a future perspective is represented by personalized treatment based on the development of new biomarkers, and strategies to overcome drug resistance to combinations of ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors. The aim of our study was to centralize the mechanisms of resistance, and we believe that our work will have utility for everyone in the medical field who wants to deepen their knowledge about ET + CDK4/6 inhibitors resistance.

The Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is an aggressive cancer characterised by an increased recurrence rate and an inadequate response to treatment. This study aimed to investigate the importance of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a prognostic marker for long-term survival in patients with mRCC. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from 74 patients with mRCC treated at our medical centre with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We evaluated the predictive value of NLR for overall survival (OS) in these patients. RESULTS: The median OS was 5.1 months in the higher NLR group (≥3) and 13.3 months in the lower NLR group (<3) (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the OS between the TKI and ICI therapies in the low NLR group (12.9 vs. 13.6 months, p = 0.411) or in the high NLR group (4.7 vs. 5.5 months, p = 0.32). Both univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that a higher NLR was an independent prognostic factor of long-term survival in patients with mRCC treated with first-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study showed that adding NLR to other Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) variables might improve the prognostic and predictive power of these models.

Nivolumab Hypersensitivity Reactions a Myth or Reality in Solid Tumors-A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the most effective treatments nowadays. Nivolumab was the second ICI used for treating solid tumors with amazing results. Patients treated with Nivolumab may react differently to this treatment. Some people tolerate this treatment very well without experiencing any adverse reactions, whilst some may have mild symptoms and a part of them can present severe reactions. In our research, we sought to identify the answers to four questions: 1. what type of cancer has more severe hypersensitivity reactions to Nivolumab, 2. what is the time frame for developing these severe reactions to Nivolumab, 3. whether it is best to continue or stop the treatment after a severe hypersensitivity reaction to Nivolumab and 4. what severe hypersensitivity reactions are the most frequent reported along Nivolumab treatment. This review also highlights another problem with regard to the usage of concomitant and prior medications or other methods of treatment (e.g., radiation therapy), which can also lead to severe reactions. Treatment with Nivolumab is very well tolerated, but patients should also be warned of the possibility of severe hypersensitivity reactions for which they should urgently see a doctor for a personalized evaluation. There are some options for individuals with severe hypersensitivity reactions, for eg. switching the medication or applying a desensitization protocol.

Correlation Between Pretreatment Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression as Prognostic Markers in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Background The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) at baseline treatment is an important marker of systemic inflammation, which is correlated with survival benefits in lung, breast, ovarian, bladder, and colorectal cancer. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is a biomarker with discording results regarding survival benefits in lung cancer. In our research, we studied the relationship between these two markers in patients with lung cancer. Methods Patients with stage I, II, III, and IV lung cancer (n = 80) were included in this retrospective study. The NLR baseline was recorded before the initiation of treatment. The NLR cut-off value was 4. PD-L1 expression was determined by immunohistochemical staining. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were conducted to test their prognostic value. Results NLR proved to be a significant prognostic factor for progression-free survival (PFS) (p=0.002, Log Rank) with a mean PFS of 27.7 months for low NLR patients and 12.8 months for high NLR patients. It was also significant for overall survival (OS) (p=0.007, Log Rank) with a mean OS of 52 months for low NLR patients and 41.6 months for high NLR patients. The prognostic impact of PD-L1 expression on PFS and OS was not statistically significant with a mean PFS of 23.1 months for PD-L1-negative patients and 15.8 months for PD-L1-positive patients (p=0.422, Log Rank). Mean OS was 49 months for PD-L1-negative patients while for PD-L1-positive patients, it was 43.3 months (p=0.550 Log Rank). Regarding the correlation between PD-L1 expression and NLR value, PFS mean survival times were 13.1 months for PD-L1(+)/NLR>4, 15.1 months for PD-L1(-)/NLR>4, 16.4 months for PD-L1(+)/NLR<4 and 27.8 months for PD-L1(-)/NLR<4. This correlation between PFS and the combined PD-L1 and NLR prognostic factor was statistically relevant (p=0.04). For OS, the PD-L1/NLR combined prognostic factor was not statistically relevant (p=0.055). A mean PFS time of 27.8 months was reported for PD-L1(-)/NLR<4 group patients while for the other groups, the mean PFS was 14.9 months (p=0.045). In univariate analysis, the elevated NLR was significantly associated with a decreased PFS time (HR=2.31, 95% CI =1.323- 4.051, p=0.03) as well as OS (HR=3.555, 95% CI=1.310- 9.652, p=0.013). In multivariate analysis, NLR remained statistically significant for PFS (HR=2.160, 95% CI=1.148- 4.062, p=0.013) and OS (HR=4.364, 95% CI=1.474- 12.921, p=0.008) after adjusting for the factors of age, gender, tumor stage, lymph node stage, clinical stage, histology, and PD-L1 expression. PD-L1 expression was not a valid prognostic factor for progression or death in either univariate or multivariate analysis. We also stratified the disease control rate (DCR) depending on PD-L1/NLR combined factor expression. In the PD-L1(-)/NLR<4 group, we had the highest number of partial responses (PRs) and only one complete response (CR) compared to the other groups (p=0.006). Conclusions As the number of patients is limited in the present analysis, it is hypothesized that these two markers can be useful in dividing patients into two prognostic groups: the good prognostic group reunites PD-L1(+)/NLR<4 and PD-L1(-)/NLR<4 and the poor prognostic group reunites PD-L1(+)/NLR>4 and PD-L1(-)/NLR>4.