Explore the vast range of titles available.

Microarray technology fails in detecting point mutations present in a small fraction of cells from heterogeneous tissue samples or in plasma in a background of wild-type cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). The aim of this study is to overcome the lack of sensitivity and specificity of current microarray approaches introducing a rapid and sensitive microarray-based assay for the multiplex detection of minority mutations of oncogenes (KRAS, NRAS and BRAF) with relevant diagnostics implications in tissue biopsies and plasma samples in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. In our approach, either wild-type or mutated PCR fragments are hybridized in solution, in a temperature gradient, with a set of reporters with a 5' domain, complementary to the target sequences and a 3' domain complementary to a surface immobilized probe. Upon specific hybridization in solution, which occurs specifically thanks to the temperature gradients, wild-type and mutated samples are captured at specific location on the surface by hybridization of the 3' reporter domain with its complementary immobilized probe sequence. The most common mutations in KRAS, NRAS and BRAF genes were detected in less than 90 minutes in tissue biopsies and plasma samples of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Moreover, the method was able to reveal mutant alleles representing less than 0,3% of total DNA. We demonstrated detection limits superior to those provided by many current technologies in the detection of RAS and BRAF gene superfamily mutations, a level of sensitivity compatible with the analysis of cell free circulating tumor DNA in liquid biopsy.

Background: The results of the phase III ClarIDHy trial led to the FDA approval of ivosidenib as a therapeutic option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) harboring isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. We recently published the first data on the use of ivosidenib in a real-world setting. Objective: Here we report the updated survival results of 11 patients with locally advanced or metastatic IDH1-mutated CCA who received ivosidenib in clinical practice. Patients and methods: Patients treated with ivosidenib as second- and third-line treatments for advanced CCA have been collected with the aim to evaluate the survival outcomes. A molecular study has been performed by next generation sequencing essay. Results: Overall, 11 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 13.7 months, median progression-free survival from the start of treatment with ivosidenib was 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.0–5.8), whereas median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI: 6.6–15.0) regardless of treatment line. Disease control rate was 63%, with two patients achieving a partial response (18%). Eighteen percent of patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse events (AEs), but no grade ⩾3 was reported. The most frequently observed grade 2 AEs were prolonged QT interval and hypomagnesemia. A molecular profiling was performed on 8 out of 11 patients, highlighting TP53, BAP1, CDKN2A, and CDKN2B as the most common co-altered genes in these patients. Conclusion: The present update confirms the results of our previous real-world experience on the use of ivosidenib in IDH1-mutated CCA. Real-world evidence on larger numbers of patients is needed to confirm our findings.

IDH1 -mutated cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are an interesting group of neoplasia with particular behavior and therapeutic implications. The aim of the present work is to highlight the differences characterizing IDH1 m and IDH1 wt CCAs in terms of genomic landscape. 284 patients with iCCA treated for resectable, locally advanced or metastatic disease were selected and studied with the FOUNDATION Cdx technology. A comparative genomic analysis and survival analyses for the most relevant altered genes were performed between IDH1 m and IDH1 wt patients. Overall, 125 patients were IDH1 m and 122 IDH1 wt. IDH1 m patients showed higher mutation rates compared to IDH1 wt in CDKN2B and lower mutation rates in several genes including TP53 , FGFR2 , BRCA2 , ATM , MAP3K1 , NOTCH2 , ZNF703 , CCND1 , NBN , NF1 , MAP3 KI3 , and RAD21 . At the survival analysis, IDH1 m and IDH1 wt patients showed no statistically differences in terms of survival outcomes, but a trend in favor of IDH1wt patients was observed. Differences in prognostic values of the most common altered genes were reported. In surgical setting, in IDH1 m group the presence of CDKN2A and CDKN2B mutations negatively impact DFS, whereas the presence of CDKN2A, CDKN2B , and PBRM1 mutations negatively impact OS. In advanced setting, in the IDH1 m group, the presence of KRAS/NRAS and TP53 mutations negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 and PIK3CA mutations negatively impact OS; in the IDH1wt group, only the presence of MTAP mutation negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 mutation negatively impact OS. We highlighted several molecular differences with distinct prognostic implications between IDH1 m and IDH1 wt patients.

BackgroundRegorafenib has been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared to placebo, becoming a standard second-line therapy for sorafenib-progressed and -tolerated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.ObjectiveWe performed a multicentre, retrospective study in Italy and Korea to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment sequence sorafenib–regorafenib compared with sorafenib and physician’s choice in a real-life setting.Patients and MethodsA propensity score model was developed to control the results for baseline variable imbalances between the arm treated with sorafenib and regorafenib (S–R) and the arm treated with sorafenib and physician’s choice (S–P). Survival analysis was conducted on the matched population.ResultsAfter the application of propensity score matching, we analysed 99 patients in the arm treated with S–R and 99 patients in the arm treated with S–P. For the S–R group, the median overall survival was 22.2 months (95% CI 17.1–27.4), compared to 17.9 months (95% CI 15.1–50.0) for the S–P group. The results of the univariate analysis showed a 31% reduction of death risk for patients treated with S–R (p = 0.0382) compared to patients treated with S–P. Interaction tests highlighted the predictive role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and extrahepatic spread.ConclusionThis study provides additional proof of the superiority of the S–R treatment over the S–P treatment approach in advanced HCC patients from a real-life setting.

Biliary tract cancer is an uncommon cancer in developed countries. In localized stages, surgery is the cornerstone of treatment with curative purpose. Conversely in advanced stages, chemotherapy with platinum–gemcitabine combination is the standard of care. Biliary tract cancers are a biologically heterogeneous group of malignancies, which perhaps explains the failure of targeted therapies in unselected patient populations to demonstrate benefit in advanced disease, although there are promises in selected populations (e.g. PD1/PD-L1 positive, BRAFV600E-mutated or IDH1-mutant). In view of the limited benefit of second line therapies in metastatic biliary tract cancer, various targeted agents have been tested in progressive disease. Furthermore, several ongoing trials are using next-generation sequencing of multiple genes to identify molecular abnormalities in the tumors of patients with refractory cancers that may potentially be used in pretreated disease (e.g. FGFR or IDH genes). Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors may be interesting for patients whose tumors have programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) overexpression. Ongoing and future trials will further advance our knowledge toward the optimal treatment strategy for the management of biliary tract cancer in its different stages, starting from metastatic and then reaching early stages of disease. We here provided an overview of these novel treatment strategies for advanced biliary tract cancers not amenable of curative treatment modalities.

It is widely accepted that assessing circular tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the plasma of cancer patients is a promising practice to evaluate somatic mutations from solid tumors noninvasively. Recently, it was reported that isolation of extracellular vesicles improves the detection of mutant DNA from plasma in metastatic patients; however, no consensus on the presence of dsDNA in exosomes has been reached yet. We analyzed small extracellular vesicle (sEV)-associated DNA of eleven metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and compared the results obtained by microarray and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to those reported on the ctDNA fraction. We detected the same mutations found in tissue biopsies and ctDNA in all samples but, unexpectedly, in one sample, we found a KRAS mutation that was not identified either in ctDNA or tissue biopsy. Furthermore, to assess the exact location of sEV-associated DNA (outside or inside the vesicle), we treated with DNase I sEVs isolated with three different methodologies. We found that the DNA inside the vesicles is only a small fraction of that surrounding the vesicles. Its amount seems to correlate with the total amount of circulating tumor DNA. The results obtained in our experimental setting suggest that integrating ctDNA and sEV-associated DNA in mCRC patient management could provide a complete real-time assessment of the cancer mutation status.

To assess the role of sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) and FDG-PET in staging and radiation treatment (RT) of anal cancer patients. This retrospective study was performed on 80 patients (male: 32, female: 48) with a median age of 60 years (39–89 years) with anal squamous cell carcinoma who were treated from March 2008 to March 2018 at the IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital. Patients without clinical evidence of inguinal LNs metastases and/or with discordance between clinical evidence and imaging features were considered for SLNB. FDG-PET was performed in 69/80 patients. Patients with negative imaging in inguinal region and negative SLNB could avoid RT on groin to spare inguinal toxicity. CTV included GTV (primary tumour and positive LNs) and pelvic ± inguinal LNs. PTV1 and PTV2 corresponded to GTV and CTV, respectively, adding 0.5 cm. RT dose was 50.4 Gy/28 fractions to PTV2 and 64.8 Gy/36 fractions to PTV1, delivered with 3DCRT (n = 24) or IMRT (n = 56), concomitant to Mitomycin-C and 5-FU chemotherapy. FDG-PET showed inguinal uptake in 21/69 patients (30%) and was negative in 48/69 patients (70%). Lymphoscintigraphy was performed in 11/21 positive patients (4 patients SLNB confirmed inguinal metastases, 6 patients false positive and 1 patient SLN not found), and in 29/48 negative patients (5/29 showed metastases, 23/29 true negative and 1 SLN not found). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of FDG-PET were 62%, 79%, 40% and 82%, respectively. Median follow-up time from diagnosis was 40.3 months (range: 4.6–136.4 months): 69 patients (86%) showed a complete response, 10 patients (13%) a partial response, 1 patient (1%) a stable disease. Patients treated on groin (n = 54) versus not treated (n = 26) showed more inguinal dermatitis (G1–G2: 50% vs. 12%; G3–G4: 17% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). For patients treated on groin, G3–G4 inguinal dermatitis, stomatitis and neutropenia were significantly reduced with IMRT against 3DCRT techniques (13% vs. 36%, p = 0.10; 3% vs. 36%, p = 0.003; 8% vs. 29%, p = 0.02, respectively). SLNB improves the FDG-PET inguinal LNs staging in guiding the decision to treat inguinal nodes. IMRT technique significantly reduced G3-G4 toxicities when patients are treated on groin.

Abstract Introduction: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was found to be noninferior compared to sorafenib in terms of overall survival. Here, we analyze the effects of lenvatinib in the real-life experience of several centers across the world and identify clinical factors that could be significantly associated with survival outcomes. Methods: The study population was derived from retrospectively collected data of HCC patients treated with lenvatinib. The overall cohort included western and eastern populations from 23 center in five countries. Results: We included 1,325 patients with HCC and treated with lenvatinib in our analysis. Median OS was 16.1 months. Overall response rate was 38.5%. Multivariate analysis for OS highlighted that HBsAg positive, NLR >3, and AST >38 were independently associated with poor prognosis in all models. Conversely, NAFLD/NASH-related etiology was independently associated with good prognosis. Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Multivariate analysis for progression-free survival revealed that NAFLD/NASH, BCLC, NLR, and AST were independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. A proportion of 75.2% of patients suffered from at least one adverse effect during the study period. Multivariate analysis exhibited the appearance of decreased appetite grade ≥2 versus grade 0–1 as an independent prognostic factor for worse progression-free survival. 924 patients of 1,325 progressed during lenvatinib (69.7%), and 827 of them had a follow-up over 2 months from the beginning of second-line treatment. From first-line therapy, the longest median OS was obtained with the sequence lenvatinib and immunotherapy (47.0 months), followed by TACE (24.7 months), ramucirumab (21.2 months), sorafenib (15.7 months), regorafenib (12.7 months), and best supportive care (10.8 months). Conclusions: Our study confirms in a large and global population of patients with advanced HCC, not candidates for locoregional treatment the OS reported in the registration study and a high response rate with lenvatinib.

Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib. To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival. Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34-0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-021-00808-3