Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Recent evidence suggested a potential correlation between overweight and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective study of advanced cancer patients consecutively treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, in order to compare clinical outcomes according to baseline BMI levels as primary analysis. Based on their BMI, patients were categorized into overweight/obese (≥ 25) and non-overweight (< 25). A gender analysis was also performed, using the same binomial cut-off. Further subgroup analyses were performed categorizing patients into underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese. Results Between September 2013 and May 2018, 976 patients were evaluated. The median age was 68 years, male/female ratio was 663/313. Primary tumors were: NSCLC (65.1%), melanoma (18.7%), renal cell carcinoma (13.8%) and others (2.4%). ECOG-PS was ≥2 in 145 patients (14.9%). PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were administered as first-line treatment in 26.6% of cases. Median BMI was 24.9: 492 patients (50.6%) were non-overweight, 480 patients (50.4%) were overweight/obese. 25.2% of non-overweight patients experienced irAEs of any grade, while 55.6% of overweight/obese patients ( p  < 0.0001). ORR was significantly higher in overweight/obese patients compared to non-overweight (p < 0.0001). Median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median TTF, PFS and OS were significantly longer for overweight/obese patients in univariate (p < 0.0001, for all the survival intervals) and multivariate models ( p  = 0.0009, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). The significance was confirmed in both sex, except for PFS in male patients ( p  = 0.0668). Conclusions Overweight could be considered a tumorigenic immune-dysfunction that could be effectively reversed by ICIs. BMI could be a useful predictive tool in clinical practice and a stratification factor in prospective clinical trials with ICIs.

The purpose of the present study was to validate the new GRade, Age, Nodes and Tumor (GRANT) score for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) prognostication within a large population of patients. Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we identified patients with either clear-cell or papillary RCC, who underwent nephrectomy between 2001 and 2015. Harrell’s C-Index, calibration plot and decision curve analysis were used to validate the GRANT model using a five-risk group stratification (0 vs. 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 risk factors). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) at 60 months. The analyses were repeated according to the histologic subgroup. The overall population included 73217 cases; 60900 with clear-cell RCC and 12317 with papillary histology, respectively. According to a five-risk group stratification, 23985 patients (32.8%) had no risk factor (0), 35019 (47.8%) had only one risk factor (1), 13275 (18.1%) had risk score 2, 854 (1.2%) had 3 risk factors and 84 (0.1%) of cases had a GRANT score of 4, respectively. At 60 months, OS rates as determined by the GRANT score were respectively 94% (score 0) vs. 86% (score 1) vs. 76% (score 2) vs. 46% (score 3) vs. 16% (score 4). In both histologic subtypes, the GRANT score yielded good calibration and high net benefit. OS C-Index values were 0.677 and 0.650 for clear-cell and papillary RCC at 60 months after surgery, respectively. In conclusion, the GRANT score was validated with a five-risk group stratification in a huge population from the SEER database, offering a further demonstration of its reliability for prognostication in RCC.

Introduction Stratifying the risk of recurrence for surgically treated papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) could be challenging. Prognostic models are crucial for patient counselling and individualized surveillance. The GRANT score is one of the models suggested by guidelines to predict prognosis of surgically treated pRCC. This study aims to externally validate the GRANT score using a three-risk group stratification in a large cohort of pRCC patients. Materials and Methods The present analysis utilized retrospective data from pRCC patients who underwent radical or partial nephrectomy. The GRANT score parameters included tumor grade, age, pathological T-stage, and N-stage. Patients were stratified into three risk groups (0-1 vs 2 vs 3-4 risk factors). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between groups were evaluated using the log-rank test. Harrell's c-index was used to measure model accuracy, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) was calculated for up to 120 months. Results A total of 1942 patients were included. The median follow-up was 64.6 months. At 60 months, CSS was 93.2% (95%CI 91.7%-94.6%) for group 1, 60.8% (95%CI 54.0%-78.6%) for group 2, and 26% (95%CI 15.7%-42.9%) for group 3, with significant differences between each group (p < 0.001). The median CSS was not reached for group 1 (95%CI NR-NR), 86.0 months in group 2 (95%CI 65-NR), and 22.8 months in group 3 (95%CI 16.4-48.0). The c-index for CSS was 0.732. The RMST at 120 months was 113.3 months for group 1, 75.9 months for group 2, and 56.6 months for group 3, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Conclusion The GRANT score effectively stratified surgically treated pRCC patients into three risk groups, demonstrating good prognostic accuracy. This validation supports the GRANT score's utility as a reliable and easy-to-use prognostic tool.

Aims: To assess prognostic value of pre-therapy carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin-19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1) blood levels in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their early change as predictor of benefit. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study including patients with stage IIIB–IV NSCLC who received anti PD-1/PD-L1 in first or advanced lines of therapy in two institutions. A control cohort of patients treated only with chemotherapy has been enrolled as well. Results: A total of 133 patients treated with nivolumab or atezolizumab were included in the test set, 74 treated with pembrolizumab first line in the validation set and 89 in the chemotherapy only cohort. CYFRA 21-1 >8 ng/mL was correlated with overall survival (OS) in the test set, validation set and in univariate and multivariate analysis (pooled cohort hazard ratio (HR) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24–2.93, p 0.003). Early 20% reduction after the third cycle was correlated with OS for CEA (HR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04–0.33; p < 0.001), and for CYFRA 21-1 (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07–0.55; p 0.002) Conclusions: CYFRA 21-1 pre-therapy assessment provides clinicians with relevant prognostic information about patients treated with ICI. CEA and CYFRA 21-1 repeated measures could be useful as an early marker of benefit.

Background Nowadays, different therapeutic options are available for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immuno-combinations are the standard first-line therapy in all mRCC patients regardless of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, even though TKI monotherapy is still a therapeutic option in selected patients. However, comparisons between the different first-line treatment strategies are lacking and few real-world data are available in this setting. For this reason, the regimen choice represents an important issue in clinical practice and the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear. Methods The REGAL study is a multicentric prospective observational study enrolling mRCC patients treated with first-line systemic therapy according to clinical practice in a real-world setting. A retrospective cohort of mRCC patients who received first-line systemic therapy from the 1st of January 2021 will also be included. The primary objective is to identify potential prognostic and predictive factors that could help guide the treatment choice; secondary objectives included the assessment of the prognostic performance of the novel prognostic Meet-URO score (IMDC score + neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio + bone metastases) compared with the IMDC score and the comparison between treatment strategies according to response and survival outcomes and toxicity profile. Discussion Considering the high number of therapeutic first-line strategies available for mRCC, the identification of clinical prognostic and predictive factors to candidate patients to a preferable systemic therapy is still an unmet clinical need. The Meet-URO 33 study aims to provide a large-scale real-world database on mRCC patients, to identify the clinical predictive and prognostic factors and the different performances between the ICI-based combinations according to response, survival and toxicity. Trial Registration CESC IOV 2023-78.

In the last 10 years, many new therapeutic options have been approved in advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients, granting a more prolonged survival in patients with metastatic disease, which, nevertheless, remains incurable. The emphasis on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has led to many trials in this setting, with disappointing results until now. Therefore, we discuss the immunobiology of PCa, presenting ongoing trials and the available clinical data, to understand if immunotherapy could represent a valid option in this disease, and which subset of patients may be more likely to benefit. Current evidence suggests that the tumor microenvironment needs a qualitative rather than quantitative evaluation, along with the genomic determinants of prostate tumor cells. The prognostic or predictive value of immunotherapy biomarkers, such as PD-L1, TMB, or dMMR/MSI-high, needs further evaluation in PCa. Monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been modestly effective. In contrast, combined strategies with other standard treatments (hormonal agents, chemotherapy, PARP inhibitors, radium-223, and TKIs) have shown some results. Immunotherapy should be better investigated in biomarker-selected patients, particularly with specific pathway aberrations (e.g., AR-V7 variant, HRD, CDK12 inactivated tumors, MSI-high tumors). Lastly, we present new possible targets in PCa that could potentially modulate the tumor microenvironment and improve antitumor activity with ICIs.

Background The Italian Renal Cell Cancer Early Access Program was an expanded access program that allowed access to nivolumab, for patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) prior to regulatory approval. Methods Pts with previously treated advanced or mRCC were eligible to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Pts included in the analysis had received ≥1 dose of nivolumab and were monitored for drug-related adverse events (drAEs) using CTCAE v.4.0. Immune-related (ir) AEs were defined as AEs displaying a certain, likely or possible correlation with immunotherapy (cutaneous, endocrine, hepatic, gastro-intestinal and pulmonary). The association between overall survival (OS) and irAEs was assessed, and associations between variables were evaluated with a logistic regression model. Results A total of 389 pts were enrolled between July 2015 and April 2016. Overall, the objective response rate was 23.1%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.7–6.2) and the 12-month overall survival rate was 63%. Any grade and grade 3–4 drAEs were reported in 124 (32%) and 27 (7%) of pts, respectively, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Any grade irAEs occurred in 76 (20%) of patients, 8% cutaneous, 4% endocrine, 2% hepatic, 5% gastro-intestinal and 1% pulmonary. Of the 22 drAEs inducing treatment discontinuation, 10 (45%) were irAEs. Pts with drAEs had a significantly longer survival than those without drAEs (median OS 22.5 versus 16.4 months, p  = 0.01). Pts with irAEs versus without irAEs had a more significant survival benefit (median OS not reached versus 16.8 months, p  = 0.002), confirmed at the landmark analysis at 6 weeks. The occurrence of irAEs displayed a strong association with OS in univariable (HR 0.48, p  = 0.003) and multivariable (HR 0.57, p  = 0.02) analysis. Conclusions The appearance of irAEs strongly correlates with survival benefit in a real-life population of mRCC pts treated with nivolumab.

Purpose of ReviewTo discuss recent advances in the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) and how best to incorporate new therapies into clinical practice.Recent FindingsThere have been several recent practice-changing phase 2 and 3 trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), and targeted agents in advanced UC. Based on data from these trials, ICIs can be used as first-line maintenance therapy in patients who do not progress on platinum-based chemotherapy, second-line therapy for those with progression, and first-line therapy in cisplatin-ineligible patients with PD-L1 expression; ADCs and targeted agents provide later-line treatment options.SummaryDespite substantial progress in the treatment of advanced UC, there are still many uncertainties, including the optimal treatment sequence for novel agents, and reliable predictive biomarkers to aid in treatment selection. There is also an unmet need for effective treatment options in patients unfit for any platinum-based chemotherapy.

Introduction Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common types of urogenital cancer. The introduction of immune-based combinations, including dual immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has radically changed the treatment landscape for metastatic RCC, showing varying efficacy across different prognostic groups based on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. Materials and methods This retrospective multicenter study, part of the ARON-1 project, aimed to evaluate the outcomes of favorable-risk metastatic RCC patients treated with immune-based combinations or sunitinib. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model. Results A total of 524 favorable-risk patients were included in the analysis. After a median follow-up of 37.2 months, the median OS in the overall population was 56.1 months. There was no significant difference in OS between patients receiving sunitinib and those receiving TKI + ICI combinations ( p  = 0.761). Patients on TKI + ICI had significantly longer PFS compared to patient treated with sunitinib (30.7 vs 22.9 months, p  = 0.007). Analysis of OS and PFS based on metastatic site revealed that patients with bone metastases benefited more from ICI plus TKI (56 patients with bone metastases receiving IO + TKI, 38 received pembrolizumab plus axitinib, 15 cabozantinib plus nivolumab and 3 pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib), while sunitinib was more effective for pancreatic and glandular metastases. Additionally, the number of metastatic sites played a role, with TKI plus ICI showing superiority in patients with a single metastatic site. The time from RCC diagnosis to metastatic disease also impacted outcomes, with TKI plus ICI being more effective in patients with a shorter interval (i.e., < 36 months). Conclusions The choice between upfront combination or monotherapy for metastatic favorable prognosis RCC remains a current issue. While combination therapy offers prolonged PFS, it does not necessarily translate to improve OS compared to sunitinib. This real-world study supports the superiority in terms of PFS of TKI plus ICI vs TKI monotherapy but not in OS. Probable, other clinical factors should be taking into account to make clinical treatment decisions in this setting.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of kidney cancer in adults, and its pathogenesis is strictly related to altered cellular response to hypoxia, in which mTOR signaling pathway is implicated. Everolimus, an mTOR serine/threonine kinase inhibitor, represents a therapeutic option for the treatment of advanced RCC. The objective of this article is to review the evidence for the treatment of metastatic RCC with everolimus. Everolimus was approved for second- and third-line therapy in patients with advanced RCC according to the results of a Phase III pivotal trial that demonstrated a benefit in median progression-free survival of ~2 months compared to placebo after failure of previous lines of therapy, of which at least one was an anti-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). The role of this drug in first-line setting has been investigated in Phase II trials, with no significant clinical benefit, even in combination with bevacizumab. Everolimus activity in non-clear cell RCC is supported by two randomized Phase II trials that confirmed the benefit in second-line setting but not in first line. Recently, two randomized Phase III trials (METEOR and CheckMate 025) demonstrated the inferiority of everolimus in second-line setting compared to the TKI cabozantinib and to the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab, respectively. Moreover, a recent Phase II study demonstrated a significant benefit for the second-line combination treatment with everolimus plus lenvatinib (a novel TKI) in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival compared to the single-agent everolimus. Basing on preclinical data, the main downstream effectors of mTOR cascade, S6RP and its phosphorylated form, could be good predictive biomarkers of response to everolimus. The safety profile of the drug is favorable, with a good cost-effectiveness compared to second-line sorafenib or axitinib, and no significant impact on the quality of life of treated patients has been found. Everolimus still represents a current standard of treatment for RCC progressive to previous treatment lines with VEGFR-TKI. The evidence about two new molecules, cabozantinib and nivolumab, successfully tested head-to-head with everolimus in recently published Phase III trials, will determine the shift of everolimus to the third-line setting and subsequent lines of treatment.