Explore the vast range of titles available.

A randomized trial compared standard chemotherapy plus dostarlimab or placebo. Patients with mismatch repair–deficient tumors had 2-year progression-free survival of 61.4% with dostarlimab and 15.7% with placebo.

G12C is a mutation that occurs in approximately 3 to 4% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Monotherapy with KRAS G12C inhibitors has yielded only modest efficacy. Combining the KRAS G12C inhibitor sotorasib with panitumumab, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, may be an effective strategy. In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial, we assigned patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer with mutated G12C who had not received previous treatment with a KRAS G12C inhibitor to receive sotorasib at a dose of 960 mg once daily plus panitumumab (53 patients), sotorasib at a dose of 240 mg once daily plus panitumumab (53 patients), or the investigator's choice of trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib (standard care; 54 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Key secondary end points were overall survival and objective response. After a median follow-up of 7.8 months (range, 0.1 to 13.9), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 6.3) and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.8) in the 960-mg sotorasib-panitumumab and 240-mg sotorasib-panitumumab groups, respectively, as compared with 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.9) in the standard-care group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the 960-mg sotorasib-panitumumab group as compared with the standard-care group was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.80; P = 0.006), and the hazard ratio in the 240-mg sotorasib-panitumumab group was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.03). Overall survival data are maturing. The objective response was 26.4% (95% CI, 15.3 to 40.3), 5.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 15.7), and 0% (95% CI, 0.0 to 6.6) in the 960-mg sotorasib-panitumumab, 240-mg sotorasib-panitumumab, and standard-care groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 35.8%, 30.2%, and 43.1% of patients, respectively. Skin-related toxic effects and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events observed with sotorasib-panitumumab. In this phase 3 trial of a KRAS G12C inhibitor plus an EGFR inhibitor in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer, both doses of sotorasib in combination with panitumumab resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard treatment. Toxic effects were as expected for either agent alone and resulted in few discontinuations of treatment. (Funded by Amgen; CodeBreaK 300 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05198934.).

The strength of the DNA damage checkpoint critically influences cell fate, yet the mechanisms behind the fine tuning of checkpoint strength during the DNA damage response (DDR) are poorly understood. Here we show that Rad54B—a SNF2 helicase-like DNA-repair protein—limits the strength of both the G1/S and G2/M checkpoints. We find that Rad54B functions as a scaffold for p53 degradation via its direct interaction with the MDM2–MDMX ubiquitin–ligase complex. During the early phases of the DDR, Rad54B is upregulated, thereby maintaining low checkpoint strength and facilitating cell cycle progression. Once the p53-mediated checkpoint is established, Rad54B is downregulated, and high checkpoint strength is maintained. Constitutive upregulation of Rad54B activity, which is frequently observed in tumours, promotes genomic instability because of checkpoint override. Thus, the scaffolding function of Rad54B dynamically regulates the maintenance of genome integrity by limiting checkpoint strength. Rad54B is a poorly characterized DNA damage repair protein homologous to Rad54, a protein implicated in DNA damage repair through homologous recombination. Here the authors implicate Rad54B as a modulator of the DNA damage response through its interaction with the MDM2–MDMX complex to regulate p53 degradation.

Two defined immune checkpoints have been exploited for cancer treatment. LAG-3 is a third immune checkpoint that blocks lymphocyte activation. Relatlimab, a monoclonal antibody against LAG-3, interferes with this block. Relatlimab plus nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone in melanoma produced superior progression-free survival.

Previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus nivolumab, or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, the two nivolumab regimens resulted in longer overall survival than chemotherapy. The side-effect profile was consistent with past reports on these agents.

Adjuvant chemotherapy has not improved disease-free survival among patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. In this trial, after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and resection, patients with residual disease were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab or placebo. Nivolumab doubled the median disease-free survival from 11.0 to 22.4 months.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib–nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting. TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting. From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib–nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0–7·4) with tivozanib–nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6–9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84–1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6–9·6) with tivozanib–nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4–10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib–nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7–5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9–7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib–nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group). These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting. Aveo Pharmaceuticals.

Gliomas are the most common primary brain tumors in adults. Despite the fact that they are relatively rare, they cause significant morbidity and mortality. High-grade gliomas or glioblastomas are rapidly progressing tumors with a very poor prognosis. The presence of an intrinsic immune system in the central nervous system is now more accepted. During the last decade, there has been no major progress in glioma therapy. The lack of effective treatment for gliomas can be explained by the strategies that cancer cells use to escape the immune system. This being said, immunotherapy, which involves blockade of immune checkpoint inhibitors, has improved patients’ survival in different cancer types. This novel cancer therapy appears to be one of the most promising approaches. In the present study, we will start with a review of the general concept of immune response within the brain and glioma microenvironment. Then, we will try to decipher the role of various immune checkpoint inhibitors within the glioma microenvironment. Finally, we will discuss some promising therapeutic pathways, including immune checkpoint blockade and the body’s effective anti-glioma immune response.