Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Before the targeted therapies era, cytotoxic chemotherapy (CCT) was an option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), even with the lack of supporting evidence. Since the last decade, sorafenib has been established as the first-line therapy. Although new agents are being incorporated, CCT is still considered in regions where new drugs are not available or for patients who progressed through the approved therapies and remain in good clinical condition. We aimed to describe our experience regarding the use of CCT as second-line treatment after sorafenib. Methods A database of 273 patients was evaluated. Patients that received CCT after sorafenib progression were selected for the analysis. Descriptive statistics was used for categorical and continue variables. Median survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Variables were found to be significant if the two-sided p value was ≤ 0.05 on multivariate testing using the Cox regression model. Results Forty-five patients received CCT; 33 (73.3%) had Child-Pugh classification A, and 34 (75.6%) had stage C according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system. The most used regimen was doxorubicin in 25 patients (55.6%). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.05 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.73 – 9.88 months). The 6-month and 1-year survival probability was 52.4% and 27.36%, respectively. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0–1 and disease control with sorafenib was independently associated with better OS in patients treated with CCT. Any-grade toxicities were observed in 82.2% and grade 3–4 in 44.4% of the patients. Conclusion In accordance with previous studies, CCT had a notable rate of adverse events. The poor prognosis of this cohort suggests that CCT may not alter the natural history of HCC after sorafenib progression.

Pivotal studies with curative chemoradiation (CRT) in anal cancer did not include HIV-positive (HIV+) patients. HIV status impact remains unknown in this scenario. In this retrospective matched cohort study, electronic medical records were reviewed at Sao Paulo State Cancer Institute between 2010 and 2021 patients with anal cancer T1-4 N0-1 M0 by AJCCVIII were selected. For each HIV+ patient, one or two HIV-negative (HIV-) cases were matched by age, stage (T, N) and ECOG. The primary endpoint was OS, estimated using Kaplan-Meir and compared with the log-rank test. 122 patients were selected, 45 being HIV+. The median follow-up was 37 months. Most patients, = 119 (98%), received concomitant CRT and had ECOG 0/1 ( = 116, 95%). Stage III corresponded to 69% of the patients ( = 85). Positive nodes were detected in 76 patients (62%). No difference was observed in complete clinical response (cCR) post-CRT (68% in HIV+ versus 63% in HIV-; = 0.6). Median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was not reached; 3-year RFS rates were 60.7% in HIV+ versus 63.1% in HIV- [hazard ratio (HR) 1.20, 95% CI 0.66-2.17, = 0.538]. Median OS was not reached; 3-year OS was 66.4% HIV+ versus 72.2% in HIV- (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.61-2.47, = 0.546). HIV+ pts presented significantly more hospital admissions due to toxicity, 30% ( = 12/40) versus 13% ( = 10/74) ( = 0.049). No difference between groups was found for colostomy ( = 0.69) and salvage surgery ( = 1). Anal carcinoma HIV+ patients treated with CRT presented similar cCR, RFS and OS compared with HIV- patients. Optimal therapy should be attempted in the HIV+ population; however, close clinical monitoring due to higher hospital admission is required.

Background First‐line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab‐containing regimens in many countries. We report longer‐term follow‐up data. Methods This open‐label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression‐free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. Results A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow‐up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46–0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD‐L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65–0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48–0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD‐L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65–0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD‐L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51–0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79–1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3–4 treatment‐related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. Conclusions Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow‐up, further supporting use as first‐line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and high-grade extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas (EPNEC) share similar histopathological features and treatment, but outcomes may differ. We evaluated in our study the expression of biomarkers associated with response rate (RR) to chemotherapy and overall survival (OS) for these entities. This is a multicentre retrospective analysis of advanced EPNEC and SCLC patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Paraffin-embedded tumour samples were reviewed by a single pathologist and tested for immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression of Ki-67, ERCC1, Bcl-2, and Lin28a. All images were evaluated by the same radiologist and RR was determined by RECIST 1.1. From July, 2006 to July, 2014, 142 patients were identified, being 82 (57.7%) SCLC and 60 (42.3%) EPNEC. Clinical characteristics and median Ki-67 (SCLC: 60%; EPNEC: 50%; p = 0.86) were similar between the groups. RR was higher for SCLC patients (86.8% versus 44.6%; p<0.001), but median OS was similar (10.3 months in SCLC and 11.1 months in EPNEC; HR 0.69, p = 0.07). Bcl-2 expression was higher in SCLC patients (46.3% versus 28.3%, p = 0.03) and was associated with worse prognosis in EPNEC (median OS 8.0 months versus 14.7 months; HR 0.47, p = 0.02). EPNEC patients presented inferior RR to platinum-based chemotherapy than SCLC but tended to live longer. Neither ERCC1, Lin28, or Ki-67 were prognostic or predictive for RR in EPNEC or SCLC. High Bcl-2 expression was associated with poor prognosis in EPNEC patients.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally, with a decreasing but still high number of cases. Although there have been improvements in treatment choices, the expected survival rates have not yet been achieved. In addition to the challenges associated with developing effective therapies, there is an urgent need to establish diagnostic and predictive biomarkers to guide treatment selection. Therefore, this review summarizes key aspects of gastric cancer, including its epidemiology, associated risk factors, and underlying pathogenesis. It also discusses the main biomarkers involved in this disease, such as PD-L1, HER − 2, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Claudin 18.2, FGFR2, and the current standard and targeted therapies. Molecular testing for these changes is gaining significance in the context of gastric cancer. By incorporating detailed biomarker analysis into clinical practice, we can provide more effective and personalized treatment options, ultimately improving clinical management and enhancing survival rates for gastric cancer patients.

Patients with microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer have poor outcomes with standard chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in nonrandomized studies of MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer and MSI-H or dMMR status according to local testing to receive, in a 2:2:1 ratio, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. The dual primary end points, assessed in patients with centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR status, were progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with nivolumab alone in patients regardless of previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. At this prespecified interim analysis, the first primary end point (involving nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy) was assessed. A total of 303 patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy; 255 patients had centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR tumors. At a median follow-up of 31.5 months (range, 6.1 to 48.4), progression-free survival outcomes (the primary analysis) were significantly better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy (P<0.001 for the between-group difference in progression-free survival, calculated with the use of a two-sided stratified log-rank test); 24-month progression-free survival was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 79) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with 14% (95% CI, 6 to 25) with chemotherapy. At 24 months, the restricted mean survival time was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 12.9) longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy, a finding consistent with the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 23% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in 48% of the patients in the chemotherapy group. Progression-free survival was longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 8HW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04008030.).

CheckMate 8HW prespecified dual primary endpoints, assessed in patients with centrally confirmed microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient status: progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nivolumab alone, regardless of previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. In our previous report, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in first-line microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer in the CheckMate 8HW trial. Here, we report results from the prespecified interim analysis for the other primary endpoint of progression-free survival for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab across all treatment lines. CheckMate 8HW is a randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial at 128 hospitals and cancer centres across 23 countries. Immunotherapy-naive adults with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer across different lines of therapy and microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient status per local testing were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 240 mg, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, every 3 weeks for four doses; then nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks; all intravenously), nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, then 480 mg every 4 weeks; all intravenously), or chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. The dual independent primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (first line) and progression-free survival by blinded independent central review with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab (all lines) in patients with centrally confirmed microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04008030). Between Aug 16, 2019, and April 10, 2023, 707 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=354) or nivolumab alone (n=353). 296 (84%) of 354 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 286 (81%) of 353 patients in the nivolumab group were centrally confirmed to have microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient status. At the data cutoff on Aug 28, 2024, median follow-up (from randomisation to data cutoff) was 47·0 months (IQR 38·4 to 53·2). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment showed significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus nivolumab (hazard ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·48–0·81; p=0·0003). Median progression-free survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (95% CI 53·8 to not estimable) and was 39·3 months with nivolumab (22·1 to not estimable). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 285 (81%) of 352 patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab and in 249 (71%) of 351 patients receiving nivolumab; grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (22%) and 50 (14%) patients, respectively. There were three treatment-related deaths: one event of myocarditis and pneumonitis each in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and one pneumonitis event in the nivolumab group. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior progression-free survival versus nivolumab across all treatment lines, with a manageable safety profile, in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. These results, together with the first-line results of superior progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy, suggest nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a potential new standard of care for patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Inhibiting the angiogenic process is a clever method of cancer care. Over the last decade, some antiangiogenic compounds have been developed and approved for cancer treatment. Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits VEGF activity. When used in combination with chemotherapy, it has an important role for treating many types of advanced cancer, including colorectal cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer and glioblastoma multiforme. In this paper we review the basic science behind this molecule s development, as well the major clinical trials in which bevacizumab was involved in oncology.

PurposeOur objective was to evaluate the benefit of re-exposing patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil treatment.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed patients with mCRC who received a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan and fluorouracil as a rechallenge regimen after progressing on the same drugs. Both FOLFOXIRI and FOLFIRINOX were used. Toxicity was evaluated for each treatment cycle, and survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsA total of 21 patients who were treated between January 2011 and December 2013 were selected for this study. Most of the patients (95.2%) had an ECOG status of 0–1. The median age at diagnosis was 52.1 years (range 36–77 years), and 14 (66.6%) patients had wild-type KRAS. Thirteen patients received FOLFIRINOX, and eight received FOLFOXIRI. Most patients had previously received at least three regimens, with 80% receiving anti-VEGF and 66% anti-EGFR antibodies. The response rate was 38%, and 24% patients had stable disease. The median time to disease progression was 4.0 months (range 1.0–9.1 months), and the median overall survival duration was 8.6 months (range 6.3–11.5 months). Most patients required dose adjustment and treatment delays. One patient experienced grade 5 neutropenic sepsis.ConclusionsBoth FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOXIRI are active and potentially feasible rechallenge treatment options for heavily pretreated patients with good performance status. With dose reduction and close monitoring for toxicity, the risk of serious adverse events can be minimised.