Explore the vast range of titles available.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 10-15% of all breast cancer cases. TNBCs lack estrogen and progesterone receptors and express low levels of HER2, and therefore do not respond to hormonal or anti-HER2 therapies. TNBC is a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer that generally displays poorer prognosis compared to other breast cancer subtypes. TNBC is chemotherapy sensitive, and this treatment remains the standard of care despite its limited benefit. Recent advances with novel agents have been made for specific subgroups with PD-L1+ tumors or germline Brca-mutated tumors. However, only a fraction of these patients responds to immune checkpoint or PARP inhibitors and even those who do respond often develop resistance and relapse. Various new agents and combination strategies have been explored to further understand molecular and immunological aspects of TNBC. In this review, we discuss clinical trials in the management of TNBC as well as perspectives for potential future treatments.

Introduction The best first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child–Pugh (CP) class B remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to perform a real-world analysis on a large sample of patients with unresectable HCC with CP B treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib. Methods The study population included patients affected by advanced (BCLC-C) or intermediate (BCLC-B) HCC patients not suitable for locoregional therapies from both the Western and Eastern world (Italy, Germany, Republic of Korea and Japan), who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib as first-line treatment. All the study population presented a CP class of B. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of CP B patients treated with Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan–Meier. The role of stratification factors was analyzed with log-rank tests. Finally, an interaction test was performed for the main baseline clinical characteristics. Results 217 CP B HCC patients were enrolled in the study: 65 (30%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and 152 (70%) received lenvatinib. The mOS for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.6–16.0), compared to 8.2 months (95% CI 6.3–10.2) for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib: HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2–3.0, p  = 0.0050). No statistically significant differences were highlighted in terms of mPFS. The multivariate analysis confirmed that patients receiving Lenvatinib as first-line treatment have a significantly longer OS compared to patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.29–3.25, p  = 0.0023). By evaluating the cohort of patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, we found that Child B patients with ECOG PS 0, or BCLC B stage or ALBI grade 1 were those who had benefited from the treatment thus showing survival outcomes no significantly different compared to those receiving Lenvatinib. Conclusion The present study suggests for the first time a major benefit from Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in a large cohort of patients with CP B class HCC.

Lung cancer remains a significant medical problem in Asia, and improved treatments are needed for patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who are frail with poor performance status or substantial comorbidities. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line atezolizumab vs. single-agent chemotherapy in the Asian subpopulation in IPSOS trail. This exploratory analysis of the Asian subpopulation from the phase 3, global, open-label, randomized controlled IPSOS trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) vs. single-agent chemotherapy (investigator's choice of vinorelbine or gemcitabine) as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); other outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and safety. Seventy patients from China and Vietnam were included. Median OS was 15.8 months in the atezolizumab group vs. 12.5 months in the chemotherapy group; unstratified hazard ratio, 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.41, 1.35). Median PFS was 8.1 months vs. 5.4 months, ORR was 27.9% vs. 7.4%, and median DOR was 18.7 months vs. 9.3 months, in the atezolizumab group vs. in the chemotherapy group, respectively. All-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were less frequent with atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy. Two patients in the atezolizumab group had grade 5 AEs, namely pneumonia and acute left ventricular failure, with the latter considered treatment-related. Atezolizumab showed encouraging efficacy results and was well tolerated in an Asian subpopulation of patients with NSCLC who were deemed ineligible for standard platinum-based chemotherapy. The findings of this exploratory subpopulation analysis were consistent with those for the global IPSOS population. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03191786.

Linear IgA Bullous Dermatosis (LABD) is a rare immune-mediated vesiculobullous disease that was reported to be induced by infections or medications. Atezolizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1), it has been used to treat multiple cancers. Here, we report a case of drug induced LABD following the administration of Atezolizumab.

Background: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy has high response rates in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) has been reported to be useful as an imaging biomarker for detecting β-catenin mutations. We evaluated whether the pretreatment of the hepatobiliary phase of EOB-MRI could predict the therapeutic effect of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Methods: This study included 68 patients (lenvatinib group (n = 33) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (n = 35)). The visual assessment and relative enhancement ratio (RER) of the largest HCC lesions were evaluated using the hepatobiliary phase of EOB-MRI. Results: The hyperintensity type (RER ≥ 0.9) was 18.2% in the lenvatinib group and 20.0% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group. In the lenvatinib group, progression-free survival (PFS) was not different between the heterogeneous and homogenous types (p = 0.688) or between the hyperintensity and hypointensity types (p = 0.757). In the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group, the heterogeneous type had significantly shorter PFS than the homogenous type (p = 0.007), and the hyperintensity type had significantly shorter PFS than the hypointensity type (p = 0.012). Conclusions: The hepatobiliary phase of EOB-MRI was useful for predicting the therapeutic effect of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy on unresectable HCC.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1556304.].

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have substantially improved clinical outcomes in multiple cancer types and are increasingly being used in early disease settings and in combinations of different immunotherapies. However, ICIs can also cause severe or fatal immune-related adverse-events (irAEs). We aimed to identify and characterise cardiovascular irAEs that are significantly associated with ICIs. In this observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study, we used VigiBase, WHO's global database of individual case safety reports, to compare cardiovascular adverse event reporting in patients who received ICIs (ICI subgroup) with this reporting in the full database. This study included all cardiovascular irAEs classified by group queries according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, between inception on Nov 14, 1967, and Jan 2, 2018. We evaluated the association between ICIs and cardiovascular adverse events using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and the information component (IC). IC is an indicator value for disproportionate Bayesian reporting that compares observed and expected values to find associations between drugs and adverse events. IC025 is the lower end of the IC 95% credibility interval, and an IC025 value of more than zero is deemed significant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03387540. We identified 31 321 adverse events reported in patients who received ICIs and 16 343 451 adverse events reported in patients treated with any drugs (full database) in VigiBase. Compared with the full database, ICI treatment was associated with higher reporting of myocarditis (5515 reports for the full database vs 122 for ICIs, ROR 11·21 [95% CI 9·36–13·43]; IC025 3·20), pericardial diseases (12 800 vs 95, 3·80 [3·08–4·62]; IC025 1·63), and vasculitis (33 289 vs 82, 1·56 [1·25–1·94]; IC025 0·03), including temporal arteritis (696 vs 18, 12·99 [8·12–20·77]; IC025 2·59) and polymyalgia rheumatica (1709 vs 16, 5·13 [3·13–8·40]; IC025 1·33). Pericardial diseases were reported more often in patients with lung cancer (49 [56%] of 87 patients), whereas myocarditis (42 [41%] of 103 patients) and vasculitis (42 [60%] of 70 patients) were more commonly reported in patients with melanoma (χ2 test for overall subgroup comparison, p<0·0001). Vision was impaired in five (28%) of 18 patients with temporal arteritis. Cardiovascular irAEs were severe in the majority of cases (>80%), with death occurring in 61 (50%) of 122 myocarditis cases, 20 (21%) of 95 pericardial disease cases, and five (6%) of 82 vasculitis cases (χ2 test for overall comparison between pericardial diseases, myocarditis, and vasculitis, p<0·0001). Treatment with ICIs can lead to severe and disabling inflammatory cardiovascular irAEs soon after commencement of therapy. In addition to life-threatening myocarditis, these toxicities include pericardial diseases and temporal arteritis with a risk of blindness. These events should be considered in patient care and in combination clinical trial designs (ie, combinations of different immunotherapies as well as immunotherapies and chemotherapy). The Cancer Institut Thématique Multi-Organisme of the French National Alliance for Life and Health Sciences (AVIESAN) Plan Cancer 2014–2019; US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health; the James C. Bradford Jr. Melanoma Fund; and the Melanoma Research Foundation.

In an interim analysis of this phase 3 trial, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone among patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a combined positive score (CPS; the number of PD-L1-staining tumor cells, lymphocytes, and macrophages, divided by the total number of viable tumor cells, multiplied by 100) of 10 or more. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not been reported. We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine-carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary end points were progression-free survival (reported previously) and overall survival among patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 10 or more (the CPS-10 subgroup), among patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 1 or more (the CPS-1 subgroup), and in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed. A total of 847 patients underwent randomization: 566 were assigned to the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, and 281 to the placebo-chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 44.1 months. In the CPS-10 subgroup, the median overall survival was 23.0 months in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 16.1 months in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.95; two-sided P = 0.0185 [criterion for significance met]); in the CPS-1 subgroup, the median overall survival was 17.6 and 16.0 months in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; two-sided P = 0.1125 [not significant]); and in the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was 17.2 and 15.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.05 [significance not tested]). Adverse events of grade 3, 4, or 5 that were related to the trial regimen occurred in 68.1% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and in 66.9% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in 0.4% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and in no patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors expressed PD-L1 with a CPS of 10 or more, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-355 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02819518.).

Cancer is associated with higher morbidity and mortality and is the second leading cause of death in the US. Further, in some nations, cancer has overtaken heart disease as the leading cause of mortality. Identification of molecular mechanisms by which cancerous cells evade T cell-mediated cytotoxic damage has led to the modern era of immunotherapy in cancer treatment. Agents that release these immune brakes have shown activity to recover dysfunctional T cells and regress various cancer. Both cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) play their role as physiologic brakes on unrestrained cytotoxic T effector function. CTLA-4 (CD 152) is a B7/CD28 family; it mediates immunosuppression by indirectly diminishing signaling through the co-stimulatory receptor CD28. Ipilimumab is the first and only FDA-approved CTLA-4 inhibitor; PD-1 is an inhibitory transmembrane protein expressed on T cells, B cells, Natural Killer cells (NKs), and Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells (MDSCs). Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) is expressed on the surface of multiple tissue types, including many tumor cells and hematopoietic cells. PD-L2 is more restricted to hematopoietic cells. Blockade of the PD-1 /PDL-1 pathway can enhance anti-tumor T cell reactivity and promotes immune control over the cancerous cells. Since the FDA approval of ipilimumab (human IgG1 k anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) in 2011, six more immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved for cancer therapy. PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab and PD-L1 inhibitors atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab are in the current list of the approved agents in addition to ipilimumab. In this review paper, we discuss the role of each immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), the landmark trials which led to their FDA approval, and the strength of the evidence per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which is broadly utilized by medical oncologists and hematologists in their daily practice.

The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has changed the treatment paradigm for advanced cancers across many tumor types. Despite encouraging and sometimes durable responses in a subset of patients, most patients do not respond. Tumors have adopted the PD-1/PD-L1 axis for immune escape to facilitate tumor growth, which can be leveraged as a potential target for immune checkpoint inhibitors. On this basis, PD-L1 protein expression on tumor or immune cells emerged as the first potential predictive biomarker for sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade. The goal of our study was to evaluate PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker based on all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated the primary studies associated with 45 FDA drug approvals from 2011 until April 2019. In total, there were approvals across 15 tumor types. Across all approvals, PD-L1 was predictive in only 28.9% of cases, and was either not predictive (53.3%) or not tested (17.8%) in the remaining cases. There were 9 FDA approvals linked to a specific PD-L1 threshold and companion diagnostic: bladder cancer (N = 3), non-small cell lung cancer (N = 3), triple-negative breast cancer (N = 1), cervical cancer (N = 1), and gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (N = 1) with 8 of 9 (88.9%) with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy. The PD-L1 thresholds were variable both within and across tumor types using several different assays, including approvals at the following PD-L1 thresholds: 1, 5, and 50%. PD-L1 expression was also measured in a variable fashion either on tumor cells, tumor-infiltrating immune cells, or both. In conclusion, our findings indicate that PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker has limitations and that the decision to pursue testing must be carefully implemented for clinical decision-making.