Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are prognostic in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, no data exist about their use in patients treated with palbociclib. We analyzed the prognostic role of CTC counts in patients enrolled in the cTREnd study, a pre-planned translational sub-study of TREnd (NCT02549430), that randomized patients with ABC to palbociclib alone or palbociclib plus the endocrine therapy received in the prior line of treatment. Moreover, we evaluated RB1 gene expression on CTCs and explored its prognostic role within the cTREnd subpopulation. Methods Forty-six patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative ABC were analyzed. Blood samples were collected before starting palbociclib treatment (timepoint T0), after the first cycle of treatment (timepoint T1), and at disease progression (timepoint T2). CTCs were isolated and counted by CellSearch® System using the CellSearch™Epithelial Cell kit. Progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit (CB) during study treatment, and time to treatment failure (TTF) after study treatment were correlated with CTC counts. Samples with ≥ 5 CTCs were sorted by DEPArray system® (DA). RB1 and GAPDH gene expression levels were measured by ddPCR. Results All 46 patients were suitable for CTCs analysis. CTC count at T0 did not show significant prognostic value in terms of PFS and CB. Patients with at least one detectable CTC at T1 ( n  = 26) had a worse PFS than those with 0 CTCs ( n  = 16) ( p  = 0.02). At T1, patients with an increase of at least three CTCs showed reduced PFS compared to those with no increase (mPFS = 3 versus 9 months, ( p  = 0.004). Finally, patients with ≥ 5 CTCs at T2 ( n  = 6/23) who received chemotherapy as post-study treatment had a shorter TTF ( p  = 0.02). Gene expression data for RB1 were obtained from 19 patients. CTCs showed heterogeneous RB1 expression. Patients with detectable expression of RB1 at any timepoint showed better, but not statistically significant, outcomes than those with undetectable levels. Conclusions CTC count seems to be a promising modality in monitoring palbociclib response. Moreover, CTC count at the time of progression could predict clinical outcome post-palbociclib. RB1 expression analysis on CTCs is feasible and may provide additional prognostic information. Results should be interpreted with caution given the small studied sample size.

Aims: It is debated whether the NRAS-mutant melanoma is more aggressive than NRAS wildtype. It is equally controversial whether NRAS-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM) is more responsive to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy (CII). 331 patients treated with CII as first-line were retrospectively recruited: 162 NRAS-mutant/BRAF wild-type (mut/wt) and 169 wt/wt. We compared the two cohorts regarding the characteristics of primary and metastatic disease, disease-free interval (DFI) and outcome to CII. No substantial differences were observed between the two groups at melanoma onset, except for a more frequent ulceration in the wt/wt group (p = 0.03). Also, the DFI was very similar in the two cohorts. In advanced disease, we only found lung and brain progression more frequent in the wt/wt group. Regarding the outcomes to CII, no significant differences were reported in overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) (42% versus 37%, 60% versus 59%, 12 (95% CI, 7–18) versus 9 months (95% CI, 6–16) and 32 (95% CI, 23–49) versus 27 months (95% CI, 16–35), respectively). Irrespectively of mutational status, a longer OS was significantly associated with normal LDH, <3 metastatic sites, lower white blood cell and platelet count, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (N/L) ratio. Our data do not show increased aggressiveness and higher responsiveness to CII in NRAS-mutant MM.

No prospective data were available prior to 2021 to inform selection between combination BRAF and MEK inhibition versus dual blockade of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) as first-line treatment options for BRAFV 600-mutant melanoma. SECOMBIT (NCT02631447) was a randomized, three-arm, noncomparative phase II trial in which patients were randomized to one of two sequences with immunotherapy or targeted therapy first, with a third arm in which an 8-week induction course of targeted therapy followed by a planned switch to immunotherapy was the first treatment. BRAF/MEK inhibitors were encorafenib plus binimetinib and checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Primary outcome of overall survival was previously reported, demonstrating improved survival with immunotherapy administered until progression and followed by BRAF/MEK inhibition. Here we report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy. We also describe preliminary results of predefined biomarkers analyses that identify a trend toward improved 4-year overall survival and total progression-free survival in patients with loss-of-function mutations affecting JAK or low baseline levels of serum interferon gamma (IFNy). These long-term survival outcomes confirm immunotherapy as the preferred first-line treatment approach for most patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma, and the biomarker analyses are hypothesis-generating for future investigations of predictors of durable benefit with dual checkpoint blockade and targeted therapy. SECOMBIT was a clinical trial testing different sequences of immunotherapy (ipilimumab plus nivolumab) and targeted therapy (encorafenib plus binimetinib) for untreated BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. Here the authors report 4-year survival outcomes, confirming long-term benefit with first-line immunotherapy, and preliminary biomarkers evaluation.

Melanoma has long represented a unique challenge in oncology. In its early stages, it can often be cured with surgery alone, resulting in excellent survival outcomes. Its biology is complex and heterogeneous, often including mutations such as BRAF and NRAS, which partly explain its high immunogenicity but also its capacity to relapse. For many decades, the standard approach in resectable stage III melanoma was surgery first, followed by adjuvant therapy. In the last decade, the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors created the opportunity to treat patients before surgery. The neoadjuvant approach is based on the hypothesis that treatment of the intact tumor may enhance antitumor immune priming and activation. The first prospective neoadjuvant studies, including OpACIN and OpACIN-neo, showed high pathological response rates with ipilimumab plus nivolumab and introduced pathological response as an early marker of long-term benefit. The PRADO study showed that treatment response could guide the extent of surgery required. The SWOG S1801 trial demonstrated better event-free survival with perioperative pembrolizumab compared to adjuvant therapy alone. Lastly, the phase III NADINA trial showed that neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab followed by response-adapted adjuvant therapy significantly improves outcomes. Biomarkers such as PD-L1, IFN-γ signature, tumor mutational burden and imaging (PET scan) appear promising to predict response, but none have been sufficiently validated for routine clinical practice.

To describe the scientific evidence regarding adjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma and the unresolved issues in this setting. This review examines the main studies on adjuvant medical therapies approved over the years by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency together with the main evidence related to the treatments referred to in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines at the time of submission (May 2026) for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma. A particular focus on immunotherapy (interferon, ipilimumab, and anti-PD-1 antibodies, both as monotherapy and in combination) and targeted therapy with anti-BRAF agents, either as monotherapy or in combination with MEK inhibitors, is given. Besides that, this work also evaluates the role of radiation therapy and addresses some unresolved issues, such as adjuvant therapy in stage IIIA and treatment selection in -mutated melanoma. Adjuvant therapy for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma has evolved over the years, starting with interferon and progressing to the use of immunocheckpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy. However, not all treatments that have proven effective in metastatic disease have subsequently played a role in the adjuvant setting. Currently, adjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma involves the use of anti-PD-1 antibodies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and dabrafenib plus trametinib if the patient has a V600 mutation. It was not possible to identify the adjuvant therapy of choice for BRAF-mutated melanoma, and several factors must be considered when deciding between immunotherapy and targeted therapy. The role of radiation therapy remains controversial and could be discussed by the multidisciplinary team as part of the adjuvant strategy in selected patients. Likewise, adjuvant therapy for stage IIIA melanoma should be carefully evaluated in light of the risk-benefit ratio.

Currently, there is limited data regarding the effectiveness of standard subsequent line therapies such as endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, or targeted agents after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor-based regimens. This paper describes time-to-treatment failure beyond progression on palbociclib or palbociclib+endocrine therapy in patients enrolled in the phase II, multicenter TREnd trial. Our results indicate that there is limited benefit from post-palbociclib treatment, regardless of the type of therapy received. A small population of long responders were identified who demonstrated ongoing benefit from a subsequent line of endocrine therapy after progression to palbociclib-based regimens. A translational research program is ongoing on this population of outliers.

Even if now we have available the weapon of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, the patients with cancer remains a very frail population in which frequently the immunologic response to vaccination may be impaired. In this setting, the SARS-CoV-2 infection screening retains a great value. However, there are still limited data on the feasibility and efficacy of combined screening procedures to assess the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including asymptomatic cases) in cancer outpatients undergoing antineoplastic therapy. From May 1, 2020, to June 15, 2020, during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, 860 consecutive patients, undergoing active anticancer therapy, were evaluated and tested for SARS-CoV-2 with a combined screening procedure, including a self-report questionnaire, a molecular nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and a rapid serological immunoassay (for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM antibodies). The primary endpoint of the study was to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including asymptomatic cases) in consecutive and unselected cancer outpatients by a combined screening modality. A total of 2955 SARS-CoV-2 NPS and 860 serological tests, in 475 patients with hematologic cancers and in 386 with solid tumors, were performed. A total of 112 (13%) patients self-reported symptoms potentially COVID-19 related. In 1/860 cases (< 1%) SARS-CoV-2 NPS was positive and in 14 cases (1.62%) the specific serological test was positive (overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection 1.62%). Of the 112 cases who declared symptoms potentially COVID-19-related, only 2.7% (3/112) were found SARS-CoV-2 positive. This is the largest study reporting the feasibility of a combined screening procedure (including triage, NPS and serologic test) to evaluate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients receiving active therapy, during the first epidemic wave and under the restrictive lockdown measures, in one of the active areas of the SARS-CoV-2 circulation. Lacking specific recommendations for the detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases, a combined diagnostic screening might be more effective to detect the exact prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in neoplastic patient population. The prevalence can obviously change according to the territorial context, the entity of the restrictive measures adopted and the phase of the epidemic curve. However, its exact and real-time knowledge could be important to balance risks/benefits of oncologic treatments, avoiding (if the prevalence is low) the reduction of dose intensity or the selection of less intensive (but also less effective) anti-cancer therapies.

The role of adjuvant therapy in stage III melanoma is well established in clinical practice. Because stage IIB-IIC melanoma carries a risk of recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality comparable to that of stage III disease, adjuvant approaches have also been developed for patients with thick stage II tumors. Both pembrolizumab and nivolumab have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the risk of local and distant recurrence in patients with high-risk stage II melanoma, whereas evidence supporting the use of BRAF-MEK inhibitors in this setting remains inconclusive. Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as immunotherapy combined with mRNA-based vaccines, are currently under investigation in clinical trials. However, given the non-trivial risk of immune-related adverse events, careful selection of patients with stage II disease who are most likely to derive meaningful benefit from adjuvant therapy is essential. In this context, several clinicopathologic variables and gene expression profiling-based prognostic tools have been proposed to refine risk stratification. To date, however, none of these instruments have been incorporated into routine clinical practice, and no validated predictive biomarkers are available. Accordingly, optimal patient selection for adjuvant therapy remains an important unmet clinical need in early-stage melanoma.

Melanoma adjuvant therapy has substantially improved recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in patients with resected high-risk disease, and more recently, these advances have extended to earlier stages. However, important unmet needs remain, including the management of stage IIIA disease, the optimal treatment strategy after relapse on adjuvant therapy, and the identification of biomarkers capable of refining patient selection. This review summarizes recent advances and unresolved questions in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of melanoma. We discuss novel systemic strategies, including immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations and personalized neoantigen mRNA vaccines, together with the expanding role of neoadjuvant approaches. We also examine prognostic and predictive tools—such as clinicopathologic models, circulating tumor DNA, serum biomarkers, tumor microenvironment features, and gene expression profiling—that may help better define recurrence risk and therapeutic benefit. Current evidence suggests that although modern therapies have changed the natural history of resected melanoma, a substantial proportion of patients are still overtreated or undertreated when treatment decisions are based on stage alone. Future progress will depend on integrating biological risk stratification with clinical staging and optimizing treatment sequencing across adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings.

Background BRAF/MEK inhibitors have improved the outcome in metastatic melanoma (MM) patients harboring a BRAF mutation, but no biomarker predictive of response has been identified. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis on 264 MM patients that had received first-line targeted therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on tissue biopsies, and samples with > 30% tumor cellularity were included in the study. The impact of BRAF variant allele frequency (BRAF-VAF) on clinical treatment outcomes was analyzed. Results BRAF-VAF was dichotomized using two approaches. (1) The “surv_cutpoint” function identified two different cut-off for progression-free survival (PFS: 44.05%) and overall survival (OS:45.1%). Patients with BRAF-VAF > 44.05% showed a significantly lower PFS (median PFS: 10 months, 95% CI: 7–13 months), compared to patients with BRAF-VAF < 44.05% (median PFS: 13 months, 95% CI: 12–21 months). Moreover, patients with higher VAF (> 45.1%) experienced a lower OS (median OS: 26 months, 95% CI: 19–38 months), compared with patients with VAF < 45.1% (median OS: 29 months, 95% CI: 29–51 months). (2) The ROC analysis significantly predicted PFS but not OS. BRAF-VAF normalized with neoplastic cellularity (nVAF) showed a strong association with both PFS, and OS compared to BRAF-VAF alone. nVAF also emerged as an independent predictor for PFS in the multivariate analysis (HR: 3.88, 95% CI: 1.84–8.20), with a higher nVAF score associated with a 3.88-fold increased risk of progression. Conclusions Our study demonstrated the role of the BRAF-VAF as predictor of response in MM patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Moreover, VAF normalization predicts PFS better than BRAF-VAF alone. Highlights The role of BRAF-VAF in predicting response to BRAF/MEK inhibitors therapy in melanoma has not been elucidated yet. In 264 metastatic melanoma patients treated with first-line targeted therapy, high BRAF-VAF values correlated with worse clinical outcomes. This evidence is further strengthened when BRAF-VAF was normalized using neoplastic cellularity (nVAF). BRAF-VAF can be used as predictor of clinical outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients treated with first-line targeted therapy.