Prognostic and Predictive Role of SPOP Mutations in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Mutations in the speckle-type POZ (SPOP) gene are frequently identified in prostate cancer (PC); yet, prognostic implications for affected patients remain unclear. Limited consensus exists regarding tailored treatments for SPOP-mutant (SPOPmut) PC. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the prognostic and predictive significance of SPOP mutations across distinct PC stages and treatments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted up to January 29, 2024. The meta-analysis included studies comparing survival outcomes between SPOPmut and SPOP wild-type (SPOPwt) PC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: From 669 records, 26 studies (including five abstracts) were analyzed. A meta-analysis of metastasis-free survival in localized (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.88; p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic PC (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53-0.76; p < 0.01) showed a favorable prognosis for patients with SPOPmut PC. In metastatic settings, SPOP mutations correlated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy ± androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76, p < 0.01, and HR: 0.60, 95% CI:0.46-0.79, p < 0.01, respectively). In metastatic castration-resistant PC, only abiraterone provided improved PFS and OS to patients with SPOP mutations compared with patients with SPOPwt, but data were limited. SPOP mutations did not correlate with improved PFS (p = 0.80) or OS (p = 0.27) for docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SPOPmut PC seem to exhibit superior oncological outcomes compared with patients with SPOPwt. Tailored risk stratification and treatment approaches should be explored in such patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Speckle-type POZ (SPOP) mutations could be a favorable prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer (PC) and may also predict better progression-free and overall survival than treatment with hormonal agents. Therefore, less intensified treatments omitting chemotherapy for patients with SPOP-mutant PC should be explored in clinical trials.

Hormone Receptor-Positive/HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Hormone Therapy and Anti-HER2 Treatment: An Update on Treatment Strategies.

Hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-positive breast cancer represents a distinct subtype expressing estrogen and progesterone receptors with an overexpression of HER2. Approximately 14% of female breast cancer cases are HER2-positive, with the majority being HR-positive. These tumors show a cross-talk between the hormonal and HER2 pathways; the interaction has implications for the treatment options for the disease. In this review, we analyze the biology of HR-positive/HER2-positive breast cancer and summarize the evidence concerning the standard of care options both in neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings and in advanced disease. Additionally, we focus on new trials and drugs for HR-positive/HER2-positive breast cancer and the new entity: HER2-low breast cancer.

Front-line Platinum Continues To Have a Role in Advanced Bladder Cancer.

Cisplatin remains a valid option in muscle-invasive or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and is even more efficient when nivolumab is added. The well-known side-effect profile and the limited number of treatment cycles represent great advantages over modern drug combinations such as enfortumab-vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

Systematic vitamin D supplementation is associated with improved outcomes and reduced thyroid adverse events in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: results from the prospective PROVIDENCE study.

BACKGROUND: Hypovitaminosis D can have a negative prognostic impact in patients with cancer. Vitamin D has a demonstrated role in T-cell-mediated immune activation. We hypothesized that systematic vitamin D repletion could impact clinical outcomes in patients with cancer receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: We planned a prospective observational study (PROVIDENCE) to assess serum vitamin D levels in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs (cohort 1 at treatment initiation, cohort 2 during treatment) and the impact of systematic repletion on survival and toxicity outcomes. In an exploratory analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes of cohort 1 with a control cohort of patients followed at the participating centers who did not receive systematic vitamin D repletion. RESULTS: Overall, 164 patients were prospectively recruited in the PROVIDENCE study. In cohort 1, consisting of 101 patients with 94.1% hypovitaminosis (≤ 30 ng/ml) at baseline, adequate repletion with cholecalciferol was obtained in 70.1% at the three months re-assessment. Cohort 2 consisted of 63 patients assessed for vitamin D at a median time of 3.7 months since immunotherapy initiation, with no patients having adequate levels (> 30 ng/ml). Even in cohort 2, systematic supplementation led to adequate levels in 77.8% of patients at the three months re-assessment. Compared to a retrospective control group of 238 patients without systematic vitamin D repletion, PROVIDENCE cohort 1 showed longer overall survival (OS, p = 0.013), time to treatment failure (TTF, p = 0.017), and higher disease control rate (DCR, p = 0.016). The Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighing (IPTW) fitted multivariable Cox regression confirmed the significantly decreased risk of death (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34-0.90) and treatment discontinuation (HR 0.61, 95%CI: 0.40-0.91) for patients from PROVIDENCE cohort 1 in comparison to the control cohort. In the context of longer treatment exposure, the cumulative incidence of any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was higher in the PROVIDENCE cohort 1 compared to the control cohort. Nevertheless, patients from cohort 1 experienced a significantly decreased risk of all grade thyroid irAEs than the control cohort (OR 0.16, 95%CI: 0.03-0.85). CONCLUSION: The PROVIDENCE study suggests the potential positive impact of early systematic vitamin D supplementation on outcomes of patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs and support adequate repletion as a possible prophylaxis for thyroid irAEs.

Upper Tract Urinary Carcinoma: A Unique Immuno-Molecular Entity and a Clinical Challenge in the Current Therapeutic Scenario.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is the most frequent malignancy of the urinary tract, which consists of bladder cancer (BC) for 90%, while 5% to 10%, of urinary tract UC (UTUC). BC and UTUC are characterized by distinct phenotypical and genotypical features as well as specific gene- and protein- expression profiles, which result in a diverse natural history of the tumor. With respect to BC, UTUC tends to be diagnosed in a later stage and displays poorer clinical outcome. In the present review, we seek to highlight the individuality of UTUC from a biological, immunological, genetic-molecular, and clinical standpoint, also reporting the most recent evidence on UTUC treatment. In this regard, while the role of surgery in nonmetastatic UTUC is undebated, solid data on adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy are still an unmet need, not permitting a definite paradigm shift in the standard treatment. In advanced setting, evidence is mainly based on BC literature and retrospective studies and confirms platinum-based combination regimens as bedrock of first-line treatment. Recently, immunotherapy and target therapy are gaining a foothold in the treatment of metastatic disease, with pembrolizumab and atezolizumab showing encouraging results in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line strategy. Moreover, atezolizumab performed well as a maintenance treatment, while pembrolizumab as a single agent achieved promising outcomes in second-line setting. Regarding the target therapy, erdafitinib, a fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor, and enfortumab vedotin, an antibody-drug conjugate, proved to have a strong antitumor property, likely due to the distinctive immune-genetic background of UTUC. In this context, great efforts have been addressed to uncover the biological, immunological, and clinical grounds in UTUC patients in order to achieve a personalized treatment.