Immunotherapy and Hepatocellular Cancer: Where Are We Now?

Immunotherapy has demonstrated its effectiveness in many cancers. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), promising results shown in the first phase II studies evaluating anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 monotherapies resulted in their approval in the United States. Approval was not obtained in Europe; subsequent randomized studies in first- or second-line treatment did not confirm these initial results. However, first data with immunotherapy plus antiangiogenic treatments or dual immunotherapy combinations were positive. In this context, the combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab took the lead. The IMbrave150 trial revealed an improved objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and overall survival with this combination versus the previous standard, sorafenib. Subsequent results of dual immunotherapy with the anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 monotherapies tremelimumab and durvalumab (also superior to sorafenib monotherapy) confirmed the value of using a combination in first-line treatment. These significant therapeutic advances, and the increase in ORR, raise two main questions. Whereas response was very limited with previous treatments, the ORR reported with these new combinations are between 20% and 30%. This raises the question of whether immunotherapy (ICI single agent, combination of ICI with antiangiogenic agent or other antitumoral treatment) can be used in patients beyond those in BCLC group C, the traditional candidate group for systemic therapy. We have thus seen an increasing number of patients previously treated with trans-arterial chemoembolization (BCLC group B) receiving these new treatments, and we develop the results of several studies combining loco-regional therapies and immunotherapy-based systemic treatments. The other major question is that of how and when to use these medical treatments as "adjuvants" to interventional radiology or surgery; the results of several works are discussed for this purpose. In this review, we cover all of these points in a fairly comprehensive manner.

How did we take care of our older cancer patients during the first COVID-19 wave? The French experience.

BACKGROUND: The management of older cancer patients has been highly challenging for clinicians in a health-care system operating at maximum capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 9 different institutions. The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of adapted patient care during the pandemic for elderly cancer patients. The secondary endpoint was to assess the incidence of hospitalization and mortality due to COVID-19. All patients were older than 65years of age. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 332 outpatients' case files between 9th of March and 30th of April 2020. The median age was 75years (range: 65-101) and 53% were male. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than half of the outpatients received modified patient care, defined as postponement or cancellation of surgery, irradiation scheme adapted, systemic treatment or the use of telemedicine. Among patients with localized cancer, 60% had a change in management strategy due to the pandemic. Changes in management strategy were made for 53% of patients at the metastatic stage. GCSF was used , in 83% of patients, increasing considerably in the context of the pandemic. Sixty-nine percent of physicians used telemedicine. In the final analysis, only one patient was hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. No deaths due to COVID-19 were reported in elderly cancer patients during this time period. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to assess modification of patient care in elderly cancer outpatients during an epidemic. With this unprecedented crisis, our objective is to protect our patients from infection via protective barrier measures and social distancing, but also to guarantee the continuity of cancer care without overexposing this fragile population. Physicians were able to adapt their practice and used new forms of management, like telemedicine.

Evaluation of medical practices in oncology in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in France: Physicians' point of view: the PRATICOVID study.

The cancer population seems to be more susceptible to COVID-19 infection and have worse outcomes. We had to adapt our medical practice to protect our patients without compromising their cancer prognosis. The national PRATICOVID study aims to describe the adaptation of cancer patient care for this population. We analyzed data from nine different institutions. The primary endpoint was to assess the prevalence of adapted patient care during the pandemic. The secondary endpoints were to describe the point of view of clinicians and patients during and after the pandemic. We analyzed 435 medical procedures between 9th of March and 30th of April. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, 47.6% of the outpatients received modified patient care. Twenty-four percent of scheduled surgeries were postponed, or were performed without perioperative chemotherapy, 18.4% followed a hypofractioned schedule, and 57% had an adaptive systemic protocol (stopped, oral protocol, and spacing between treatments). Seventy percent of physicians used telemedicine. During this period, 67% of the physicians did not feel distressed taking care of their patients. However, 70% of physicians are worried about the aftermath of the lockdown, as regards future patient care. The PRATICOVID study is the first to assess modification of patient care in cancer outpatients during an epidemic. With this unprecedented crisis, physicians were able to adapt their practice in order to protect their patients against the virus while ensuring continuity of patient care. But physicians are worried about the aftereffects of the lockdown specifically in regard to care pathway issues.

Impact of a dedicated multidisciplinary meeting on the management of superficial cancers of the digestive tract.

Background The recent development of endoscopic resection for superficial gastrointestinal cancers could justify the need for a dedicated oncological multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the dedicated MDM on the management of superficial cancers of the digestive tract. Methods A dedicated MDM was developed at our tertiary referral center. A retrospective review of the MDM conclusions for all patients referred from March 2015 to March 2017 was performed. Outcomes measurements were the outcomes of endoscopic resection, and the concordance rate between the MDM recommendations, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines, and final patient management. Results In total, 153 patients with a median age of 69 years were included. Half of the patients had major comorbidities. The mean lesion size was 25 mm, and R0 and curative resection rate were 73.9 % and 56.9 %, respectively. Forty-three patients had an indication for surgery after endoscopic resection. The concordance rate between ESGE guidelines and MDM recommendation was 92.2 %, and 12 patients did not receive the treatment recommended due to comorbidities. Conclusion A MDM dedicated to superficial tumors helped tailor the ESGE guidelines to each patient in order to avoid unnecessary surgery.

Efficacy of modern chemotherapy and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian metastases from gastric cancer: A retrospective AGEO multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian metastases from gastrointestinal tumours frequently lead to locoregional complications and undermine quality of life. The chemosensitivity of ovarian metastases from gastric cancer is unknown. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of modern chemotherapy regimens in first-line treatment for patients with ovarian metastases from gastric cancer. METHODS: All consecutive patients with ovarian metastases from gastric cancer who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy were included in this retrospective study. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included (median age, 50.5 years; synchronous ovarian metastases, 60%). Seventeen patients (48.6%) underwent oophorectomy. Patients were treated with first-line chemotherapy based on platinum (n=14), irinotecan (n=8), taxane plus platinum (n=4) or epirubicin plus platinum (n=9). The median PFS and OS were 6.8 and 18.8 months, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) for extra-ovarian (13.6%) and ovarian (20.9%) metastatic sites was not significantly different (p=0.55). There was no significant difference in terms of ORR on ovarian metastatic site according to the first-line chemotherapy (p=0.21). In multivariate analysis, oophorectomy was an independent prognostic factor for OS (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that ovarian metastases from gastric cancer are not more resistant than extra-ovarian metastases, and that oophorectomy is an independent prognostic factor significantly linked to OS. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.