Predicting early recurrence after resection of initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: the role of baseline and pre-surgery clinical, radiological and molecular factors in a real-life multicentre experience.

BACKGROUND: Advances in surgical techniques and systemic treatments have increased the likelihood of achieving radical surgery and long-term survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). Nonetheless, roughly half of the patients resected after an upfront systemic therapy experience disease relapse within 6 months from surgery, thus leading to the question whether surgery is actually beneficial for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A real-world dataset of mCRC patients with initially unresectable liver-limited disease treated with conversion chemotherapy followed by radical resection of CRLMs at three high-volume Italian institutions was retrospectively assessed with the aim of investigating the association of baseline and pre-surgical clinical, radiological and molecular factors with the risk of relapse within 6 or 12 months from surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 268 patients were included in the analysis and 207 (77%) experienced recurrence. Ninety-six (46%) of them had disease relapse within 6 months after CRLM resection and in spite of several variables associated with early recurrence at univariate analyses, only primary tumour resection at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.89, P = 0.02] remained significant in the multivariable model. Among patients with resected primary tumours, pN+ stage was associated with higher risk of disease relapse within 6 months (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.23-7.41, P = 0.02). One hundred and forty-nine patients (72%) had disease relapse within 12 months after CRLMs resection but none of the analysed variables was independently associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical, radiological and molecular factors assessed before and after conversion chemotherapy do not reliably predict early recurrence after secondary resection of initially unresectable CRLMs. While novel markers are needed to optimize the cost/efficacy balance of surgical procedures, CRLM resection should be offered as soon as metastases become resectable during first-line chemotherapy to all patients eligible for surgery.

Under-reporting of subjective symptoms and its prognostic value: a pooled analysis of 12 cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists tend to under-report subjective symptoms during cancer treatment. This study describes the under-reporting rate of selected symptoms and explores its association with overall survival (OS). A secondary aim is to test the association of patient-reported symptoms with OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis on data pooled from 12 randomized trials, promoted by the National Cancer Institute of Naples (Italy), enrolling patients between 2002 and 2019, with published primary analyses. Occurrence and grade of six side-effects (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and fatigue) reported by physicians were compared with corresponding symptoms reported by patients in quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires. Under-reporting was defined as the rate of cases reported grade 0 by the physician while grade ≥1 by the patient. Prognostic value was tested in a multivariable model stratified by trial, including age, sex and performance status as confounders. A landmark threshold was defined for OS analyses. RESULTS: 3792 patients with advanced lung, ovarian, pancreatic, breast or colorectal cancer were pooled; 2603 (68.6%) were eligible having at least one toxicity assessment and one QoL questionnaire, before the first planned disease restaging. Concordance between physicians' and patients' reporting was low with Cohen's k coefficients ranging from 0.03 (fatigue) to 0.33 (vomiting). Under-reporting ranged from 52.7% (nausea) to 80.5% (anorexia), and was not associated with OS. Patient-reported anorexia, vomiting and fatigue ('a little' or more) were significantly associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSIONS: Under-reporting of treatment side-effects is frequent, but it does not affect OS. Patients' reported symptoms should be used for prognostic evaluation.

Pemigatinib for metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma with FGF/FGFR genomic alterations: final results from FIGHT-201.

BACKGROUND: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations are oncogenic drivers of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Pemigatinib is a selective, oral inhibitor of FGFR1-3 with antitumor activity. We report the efficacy and safety of pemigatinib in the open-label, single-arm, phase II study of previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 alterations (FIGHT-201; NCT02872714). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements (cohort A) and other FGF/FGFR alterations (cohort B) were included. Patients received pemigatinib 13.5 mg once daily continuously (CD) or intermittently (ID) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally confirmed objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 in cohort A-CD. Secondary endpoints included ORR in cohorts A-ID and B, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 260 patients were enrolled and treated (A-CD, n = 101; A-ID, n = 103; B, n = 44; unconfirmed FGF/FGFR status, n = 12). All discontinued treatment, most commonly due to progressive disease (68.5%). ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] in cohorts A-CD and A-ID was 17.8% (10.9% to 26.7%) and 23.3% (15.5% to 32.7%), respectively. Among patients with the most common FGFR3 mutation (S249C; n = 107), ORR was similar between cohorts (A-CD, 23.9%; A-ID, 24.6%). In cohorts A-CD/A-ID, median (95% CI) DOR was 6.2 (4.1-8.3)/6.2 (4.6-8.0) months, PFS was 4.0 (3.5-4.2)/4.3 (3.9-6.1) months, and OS was 6.8 (5.3-9.1)/8.9 (7.5-15.2) months. Pemigatinib had limited clinical activity among patients in cohort B. Of 36 patients with samples available at progression, 6 patients had 8 acquired FGFR3 secondary resistance mutations (V555M/L, n = 3; V553M, n = 1; N540K/S, n = 2; M528I, n = 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events overall were diarrhea (44.6%) and alopecia, stomatitis, and hyperphosphatemia (42.7% each). CONCLUSIONS: Pemigatinib was generally well tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity in previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements.

Confirmatory validation analysis of the PROFFIT questionnaire to assess financial toxicity in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) questionnaire was developed to measure financial toxicity (FT) and identify its determinants. The aim of the present study was to confirm its validity in a prospective cohort of patients receiving anticancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2021 to July 2022, 221 patients were enrolled at 10 Italian centres. Selected items of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire represented the anchors, specifically, question 28 (Q-28) on financial difficulties, and questions 29-30 measuring global health status/quality of life (HR-QOL). The study had 80% power to detect a 0.20 correlation coefficient (r) between anchors and PROFFIT-score (items 1-7, range 0-100, 100 indicating maximum FT) with bilateral alpha 0.05 and 80% power. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. FT determinants (items 8-16) were described. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 65 years, 116 (52.5%) were females, 96 (43.4%) had low education level. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit of the PROFFIT-score. Significant partial correlation of PROFFIT-score was found with Q-28 (r = 0.51) and HR-QOL (r = -0.23). Mean (SD) PROFFIT-score at baseline was 36.5 (24.9); it was statistically significantly higher for patients living in South Italy, those with lower education level, those who were freelancer/unemployed at diagnosis and those who reported significant economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean (SD) scores of determinants ranged from 17.6 (27.1) for item 14 (support from medical staff) to 49.0 (36.3) for item 10 (expenses for medicines or supplements). PROFFIT-score significantly increased with worsening response to determinants. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of PROFFIT-score in an independent sample of patients was successful. The instrument is now being used in clinical studies.

Randomized open-label controlled study of cancer vaccine OSE2101 versus chemotherapy in HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with resistance to immunotherapy: ATALANTE-1.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) ultimately progress either rapidly (primary resistance) or after durable benefit (secondary resistance). The cancer vaccine OSE2101 may invigorate antitumor-specific immune responses after ICB failure. The objective of ATALANTE-1 was to evaluate its efficacy and safety in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ATALANTE-1 was a two-step open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSE2101 compared to standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy (CT). Patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A2-positive advanced NSCLC without actionable alterations, failing sequential or concurrent CT and ICB were randomized (2 : 1) to OSE2101 or SoC (docetaxel or pemetrexed). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Interim OS futility analysis was planned as per Fleming design. In April 2020 at the time of interim analysis, a decision was taken to prematurely stop the accrual due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Final analysis was carried out in all patients and in the subgroup of patients with ICB secondary resistance defined as failure after ICB monotherapy second line ≥12 weeks. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (139 OSE2101, 80 SoC); 118 had secondary resistance to sequential ICB. Overall, median OS non-significantly favored OSE2101 over SoC {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.86 [0.62-1.19], P = 0.36}. In the secondary resistance subgroup, OSE2101 significantly improved median OS versus SoC [11.1 versus 7.5 months; HR (95% CI) 0.59 (0.38-0.91), P = 0.017], and significantly improved post-progression survival (HR 0.46, P = 0.004), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status deterioration (HR 0.43, P = 0.006) and Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status compared to SoC (P = 0.045). Six-month disease control rates and progression-free survival were similar between groups. Grade ≥3 adverse effects occurred in 11.4% of patients with OSE2101 and 35.1% in SoC (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced NSCLC and secondary resistance to immunotherapy, OSE2101 increased survival with better safety compared to CT. Further evaluation in this population is warranted.

Cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse persons: results from two national surveys among providers and health service users by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) population represents an underserved group across the cancer care continuum. To assess the perspective of both oncology health care providers (OHPs) and TGD individuals in Italy, we conducted two national surveys: one among 2407 OHPs about their attitudes, knowledge and behavior toward TGD patients, and one among TGD persons about their health needs, experiences and barriers encountered in the use of health services across the cancer continuum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The surveys were self-compiled web-based computer-aided web interview, conducted in Italy within the 'OncoGender-Promoting Inclusion in Oncology' project, led by the Italian national cancer society [Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)]-associated researchers. All members of AIOM were invited by e-mail to participate in the OHP survey. TGD persons were reached through advocacy groups and consumers' panel. The recruitment was completed on a voluntary basis. Survey data were collected and managed using an online platform managed by ELMA Research, an independent pharmaceutical marketing agency. RESULTS: A total of 305 OHPs (13% of AIOM members) and 190 TGD individuals participated in the surveys. Only 19% of OHPs felt competent in providing care to TGD patients and 21% declared not to feel comfortable in treating TGD patients. Seventy-one percent of TGD persons reported that they had never joined any cancer screening program; 32% reported one or more acts of discrimination by health care providers. Seventy-two percent of OHPs recognized the lack of specific education on cancer care for TGD patients and deemed it necessary to receive adequate training. CONCLUSIONS: A general lack of knowledge among OHPs about TGD health issues seems to be the main driver of difficulties in providing assistance and of discriminatory attitudes against TGD individuals. Ultimately, this whole issue generates access barriers and contributes to lack of trust in health care services. Educational interventions and an implementation of person-centric cancer policies are urgently needed.

Vaccination for seasonal influenza, pneumococcal infection and SARS-CoV-2 in patients with solid tumors: recommendations of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM).

Patients with cancer have a well-known and higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). VPDs may cause severe complications in this setting due to immune system impairment, malnutrition and oncological treatments. Despite this evidence, vaccination rates are inadequate. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology [Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)] has been involved in vaccination awareness since 2014. Based on a careful review of the available data about the immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of flu, pneumococcal and anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, we report the recommendations of the AIOM about these vaccinations in adult patients with solid tumors. The AIOM recommends comprehensive education on the issue of VPDs. We believe that a multidisciplinary care model may improve the vaccination coverage in immunocompromised patients. Continued surveillance, implementation of preventive practices and future well-designed immunological prospective studies are essential for better management of our patients with cancer.

Long-term survival with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolongs survival versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We further characterized clinical benefit with this regimen in a large pooled patient population and assessed the effect of response on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from four studies of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC (CheckMate 227 Part 1, 817 cohort A, 568 Part 1, and 012). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety were assessed. Landmark analyses of OS by response status at 6 months and by tumor burden reduction in responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were also assessed. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1332) with a minimum follow-up of 29.1-58.9 months, median OS was 18.6 months, with a 3-year OS rate of 35%; median PFS was 5.4 months (3-year PFS rate, 17%). Objective response rate was 36%; median duration of response was 23.7 months, with 38% of responders having an ongoing response at 3 years. In patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, ≥1%, 1%-49%, or ≥50%, 3-year OS rates were 30%, 38%, 30%, and 48%. Three-year OS rates were 30% and 38% in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. Efficacy outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years were similar to the overall pooled population (median OS, 20.1 months; 3-year OS rate, 34%). In the pooled population, responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab at 6 months had longer post-landmark OS than those with stable or progressive disease; 3-year OS rates were 66%, 22%, and 14%, respectively. Greater depth of response was associated with prolonged survival; in patients with tumor burden reduction ≥80%, 50% to <80%, or 30% to <50%, 3-year OS rates were 85%, 72%, and 44%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in the pooled population. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival benefit and durable response with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in this large patient population further support this first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC.

Subgroup analyses in randomized phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours: a systematic review of trials published between 2017 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials are very common in oncology; nevertheless, the methodological approach has not been systematically evaluated. The present analysis was conducted with the aim of describing the prevalence and methodological characteristics of the subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed was carried out to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials conducted in adult patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, published between 2017 and 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 253 publications were identified. Subgroup analyses were reported in 217 (86%) publications. A statistically significant association of presence of subgroup analysis with study sponsor was observed: subgroup analyses were reported in 157 (94%) for-profit trials compared with 60 (70%) non-profit trials (P < 0.001). Description of the methodology of subgroup analysis was completely lacking in 82 trials (38%), only cited without methodological details in 100 trials (46%) and fully described in 35 trials (16%). Forest plot of subgroup analyses for the primary endpoint was available in 195 publications (77%). Among publications with reported forest plots, the median number of subgroups for primary endpoint was 19 (range 6-78). Out of the 217 publications with subgroup analyses, authors discuss the heterogeneity of treatment effect among different subgroups in 173 publications (80%), although a formal test for interaction for subgroup analysis of primary endpoint was reported for at least one variable only in 60 publications (28%). Correction for multiplicity was explicitly carried out only in nine trials (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The very high prevalence of subgroup analyses in published papers, together with their methodological weaknesses, makes advisable an adequate education about their correct presentation and correct reading. More attention about proper planning and conduction of subgroup analysis should be paid not only by readers, but also by authors, journal editors and reviewers.

Addition of androgen receptor-targeted agents to androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) historically represented the milestone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Recently, combining androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) or docetaxel with ADT significantly improved clinical outcomes in this setting. The efficacy of the combined use of an ARTA with docetaxel and ADT (triplet), however, was unknown, and often conflicting data derived from subgroup analysis of randomized phase III trials. In order to better define the benefits and risks of the triplet in mHSPC, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical trials. METHODS: A literature search with no data restriction using Medline/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and American Society of Clinical Oncology/European Society for Medical Oncology (ASCO/ESMO) Meeting abstracts was carried out up to April 2022. The meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary endpoints. For OS and PFS, summary hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated; for safety, risk ratio (RR) was assessed. Random- or fixed-effects models were used, depending on studies heterogeneity. RESULTS: Five randomized clinical trials fulfilled the prespecified inclusion criteria. The triplet significantly improved OS (fixed-effect, HR = 0.74; P < 0.00001) and PFS (fixed-effect; HR = 0.50 for clinical PFS, HR = 0.49 for radiological PFS; P < 0.0001) compared with docetaxel plus ADT. We did not show heterogeneity between treatment efficacy and the disease burden, metachronous versus synchronous presentation, concomitant versus sequential strategy. Compared with docetaxel + ADT, the triplet did not increase the risk of adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.00, P = 0.27 for any-grade AEs; RR = 1.13, P = 0.14 for severe AEs), except for severe hypertension (RR = 1.73, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Emerging evidence supports the combination of an ARTA plus docetaxel and ADT in mHSPC patients. Given the availability of several strategies in this setting, clinical characteristics and drug safety profile may help clinicians select the appropriate treatment for mHSPC patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment intensification.

Position paper of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology on the impact of COVID-19 on Italian oncology and the path forward: the 2021 Matera statement.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected cancer care and research by disrupting the prevention and treatment paths as well as the preclinical, clinical, and translational research ecosystem. In Italy, this has been particularly significant given the severity of the pandemic's impact and the intrinsic vulnerabilities of the national health system. However, whilst detrimental, disruption can also be constructive and may stimulate innovation and progress. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has recognized the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care continuum and research and proposes the '2021 Matera statement' which aims at providing pragmatic guidance for policymakers and health care institutions to mitigate the impact of the global health crisis on Italian oncology and design the recovery plan for the post-pandemic scenario. The interventions are addressed both to the pillars (prevention, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, health care professionals) and foundations of cancer care (communication and care relationship, system organization, resources, research, networking). The priorities to be implemented can be summarized in the MATERA acronym: Multidisciplinarity; Access to cancer care; Telemedicine and Territoriality; Equity, ethics, education; Research and resources; Alliance between stakeholders and patients.

Clinical efficacy of sequential treatments in KRASG12C-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: findings from a real-life multicenter Italian study (CRC-KR GOIM).

BACKGROUND: The presence of KRASG12C mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) correlates with poor outcome. Although different selective inhibitors are under clinical development, the optimal treatment remains uncertain. Thus, we conducted a retrospective analysis in a large cohort of patients with KRASG12C mCRC treated in 12 Italian oncology units. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable mCRC harboring KRASG12C mutation receiving a first-line chemotherapy doublet or triplet between 2011 and 2021 were included in the study. Evaluation of overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) analysis was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 256/6952 (3.7%) patients with mCRC displayed KRASG12C mutation; of these, 111 met the inclusion criteria. The ORR of first-line therapy was 38.7% (43/111). Median PFS (mPFS) was 9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.5-10.5 months]. After progression, only 62% and 36% of the patients are fit to receive second or third lines of treatment, with limited clinical benefit. Median OS (mOS) was 21 months (95% CI 17.4-24.6 months). In patients receiving first-line triplet chemotherapy, ORR was 56.3% (9/16), mPFS was 13 months (95% CI 10.3-15.7 months) and mOS was 32 months (95% CI 7.7-56.3 months). For irinotecan-based doublets, ORR was 34.5 (10/29), mPFS was 9 months (95% CI 6.4-11.6 months) and mOS was 22 months (95% CI 16.0-28.0 months). With oxaliplatin-based doublets ORR was 36.4% (24/62), mPFS was 7 months (95% CI 4.6-9.4 months) and mOS was 18 months (95% CI, 13.6-22.4 months). CONCLUSION: Patients with KRASG12C-mutant mCRC had a disappointing response to standard treatments. Within the limitations of a retrospective study, these results suggest that first-line chemotherapy intensification with FOLFOXIRI is a valid option in fit patients.

Vaccination for herpes zoster in patients with solid tumors: a position paper on the behalf of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM).

Herpes zoster (HZ) is the infectious reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus. HZ is more frequent in immunocompromised subjects, including patients with cancer. HZ complications can even last for years with a consequent delay in treatment of the underlying malignancy and with an unfavorable impact on quality of life. Nowadays, HZ is a vaccine-preventable disease: the recent approval of adjuvanted glycoprotein E-based recombinant zoster vaccine has changed preventive perspectives in immunocompromised subjects. Recombinant zoster vaccine induced both strong humoral and cellular immune responses also in immunocompromised patients. The question is, therefore, to which categories of cancer patients we should recommend HZ vaccination. Based on a careful review of the available data present in the literature, including recommendations and expert opinions, we report the position of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica on HZ vaccination in adult patients with solid tumors, thus providing clinical practice advice in a field where clear-cut information is missing.

Health-related quality of life with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced microsatellite instability high/mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer in the KEYNOTE-158 study.

OBJECTIVE: Pembrolizumab demonstrated a clinically meaningful objective response rate in patients with previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer in the multicohort phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628067). We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results for these patients. METHODS: This analysis included patients from cohorts D (endometrial cancer with any MSI status) and K (any MSI-H/dMMR solid tumor except colorectal) who had previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles. EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires were administered at baseline, at regular intervals during treatment, and 30 days after treatment discontinuation. Pre-specified exploratory analyses included changes from baseline to week 9 in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale (VAS) score for all patients and by best overall response. RESULTS: 84 of 90 enrolled patients completed ≥1 HRQoL questionnaire and were included in the analysis. QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L compliance rates were 90% and 94%, respectively, at baseline, and 92% and 93% at week 9. Mean (95% CI) QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 9 by 6.08 (0.71-11.46) points in the overall population, with greater improvement in patients who achieved complete or partial response (11.67 [5.33-18.00]-point increase). Mean (95% CI) EQ-5D-3L VAS scores improved by 6.00 (2.25-9.75) points in the overall population and 9.11 (5.24-12.98) points in patients with CR/PR. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab maintained or improved HRQoL in patients with previously treated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR endometrial cancer, further supporting efficacy and safety results from KEYNOTE-158 and pembrolizumab use in this setting.

Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in 233 patients with previously treated advanced microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) advanced solid tumors in the phase II multicohort KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes with longer follow-up for more patients with previously treated advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers who were included in cohort K of the KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with previously treated advanced noncolorectal MSI-H/dMMR solid tumors, measurable disease as per RECIST v1.1, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 by independent central radiologic review. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-one patients with various tumor types were enrolled in KEYNOTE-158 cohort K. The most common tumor types were endometrial (22.5%), gastric (14.5%), and small intestine (7.4%). Median time from first dose to database cut-off (5 October 2020) was 37.5 months (range, 0.2-55.6 months). ORR among 321 patients in the efficacy population (patients who received ≥1 dose of pembrolizumab enrolled ≥6 months before the data cut-off date) was 30.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.8% to 36.2%]. Median duration of response was 47.5 months (range, 2.1+ to 51.1+ months; '+' indicates no progressive disease by the time of last disease assessment). Median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2 months) and median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 14.1-27.1 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 227 patients (64.7%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 39 patients (11.1%); 3 (0.9%) had grade 5 treatment-related AEs (myocarditis, pneumonia, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, n = 1 each). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable benefit, with a high ORR of 30.8%, long median duration of response of 47.5 months, and manageable safety across a range of heavily pretreated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers, providing support for use of pembrolizumab in this setting.

Implementation of preventive and predictive BRCA testing in patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer: a position paper of Italian Scientific Societies.

Constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with an increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers. Current evidence indicates that BRCA1/2 PVs are also associated with pancreatic cancer, and that BRCA2 PVs are associated with prostate cancer risk. The identification of carriers of constitutional PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes allows the implementation of individual and family prevention pathways, through validated screening programs and risk-reducing strategies. According to the relevant and increasing therapeutic predictive implications, the inclusion of BRCA testing in the routine management of patients with breast, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancers represent a key requirement to optimize medical or surgical therapeutic and prevention decision-making, and access to specific anticancer therapies. Therefore, accurate patient selection, the use of standardized and harmonized procedures, and adherence to homogeneous testing criteria, are essential elements to implement BRCA testing in clinical practice. This consensus position paper has been developed and approved by a multidisciplinary Expert Panel of 64 professionals on behalf of the AIOM-AIRO-AISP-ANISC-AURO-Fondazione AIOM-SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SICO-SIF-SIGE-SIGU-SIU-SIURO-UROP Italian Scientific Societies, and a patient association (aBRCAdaBRA Onlus). The working group included medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, medical and molecular geneticists, clinical molecular biologists, surgical and molecular pathologists, organ specialists such as gynecologists, gastroenterologists and urologists, and pharmacologists. The manuscript is based on the expert consensus and reports the best available evidence, according to the current eligibility criteria for BRCA testing and counseling, it also harmonizes with current Italian National Guidelines and Clinical Recommendations.