Direct healthcare costs of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Italy

Objectives: The management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is rapidly evolving; however, little is known about the direct healthcare costs of nmCRPC. We aimed to estimate the cost-of-illness (COI) of nmCRPC from the Italian National Health Service perspective. Methods: Structured, individual qualitative interviews were carried out with clinical experts to identify what healthcare resources are consumed in clinical practice. To collect quantitative estimates of healthcare resource consumption, a structured expert elicitation was performed with clinical experts using a modified version of a previously validated interactive Excel-based tool, EXPLICIT (EXPert eLICItation Tool). For each parameter, experts were asked to provide the lowest, highest, and most likely value. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to test the robustness of the results. Results: Ten clinical experts were interviewed, and six of them participated in the expert elicitation exercise. According to the most likely estimate, the yearly cost per nmCRPC patient is €4,710 (range, €2,243 to €8,243). Diagnostic imaging (i.e., number/type of PET scans performed) had the highest impact on cost. The PSA showed a 50 percent chance for the yearly cost per nmCRPC patient to be within €5,048 using a triangular distribution for parameters, and similar results were found using a beta-PERT distribution. Conclusions: This study estimated the direct healthcare costs of nmCRPC in Italy based on a mixed-methods approach. Delaying metastases may be a reasonable goal also from an economic standpoint. These findings can inform decision-making abou

Application of the Meet-URO score to metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with second- and third-line cabozantinib

open18Background: The addition of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and bone metastases to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (by the Meet-URO score) has been shown to better stratify pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. This study aimed to validate the Meet-URO score in patients receiving cabozantinib to assess its predictivity and prognostic role. Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis evaluated mRCC patients receiving ⩾second-line cabozantinib. NLR, IMDC score and bone metastases were assessed before the start of cabozantinib. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of the prediction of the two scores. Results: Overall, 174 mRCC patients received cabozantinib as second and third line (51.7% and 48.3%, respectively) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months. A shorter median overall survival (mOS) was observed for the IMDC poor-risk group, NLR ⩾3.2 and the presence of bone metastases, while the IMDC intermediate-risk group had a similar mOS to the favourable-risk one. Applying the Meet-URO score, three risk groups were identified: group 1 (55.2% of patients) with a score of 0-3, group 2 (38.5%) with a score of 4-8 and group 3 (6.3%) with a score of 9. Compared to group 1 (mOS: 39.4 months), a statistically significant worse mOS was observed in group 2 (11.2 months) and group 3 (3.2 months) patients, respectively. The Meet-URO c-index score was 0.640, showing a higher discriminative ability than the IMDC score (c-index: 0.568). Conclusion: This analysis showed that the Meet-URO score provides a more accurate prognostic stratification than the IMDC score in mRCC patients treated with ⩾second-line cabozantinib besides nivolumab. Moreover, it is an easy-to-use tool with no additional costs for clinical practice (web-calculator is available at: https://proviso.shinyapps.io/Meet-URO15_score/). Future investigations will include the application of the Meet-URO score to the first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies.openRebuzzi, Sara Elena; Cerbone, Luigi; Signori, Alessio; Santoni, Matteo; Murianni, Veronica; De Giorgi, Ugo; Procopio, Giuseppe; Porta, Camillo; Milella, Michele; Basso, Umberto; Massari, Francesco; Maruzzo, Marco; Iacovelli, Roberto; Battelli, Nicola; Carmisciano, Luca; Banna, Giuseppe Luigi; Buti, Sebastiano; Fornarini, GiuseppeRebuzzi, Sara Elena; Cerbone, Luigi; Signori, Alessio; Santoni, Matteo; Murianni, Veronica; De Giorgi, Ugo; Procopio, Giuseppe; Porta, Camillo; Milella, Michele; Basso, Umberto; Massari, Francesco; Maruzzo, Marco; Iacovelli, Roberto; Battelli, Nicola; Carmisciano, Luca; Banna, Giuseppe Luigi; Buti, Sebastiano; Fornarini, Giusepp

Application of the Meet-URO score to metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with second- and third-line cabozantinib

Background: The addition of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and bone metastases to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (by the Meet-URO score) has been shown to better stratify pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. This study aimed to validate the Meet-URO score in patients receiving cabozantinib to assess its predictivity and prognostic role. Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis evaluated mRCC patients receiving ⩾second-line cabozantinib. NLR, IMDC score and bone metastases were assessed before the start of cabozantinib. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of the prediction of the two scores. Results: Overall, 174 mRCC patients received cabozantinib as second and third line (51.7% and 48.3%, respectively) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months. A shorter median overall survival (mOS) was observed for the IMDC poor-risk group, NLR ⩾3.2 and the presence of bone metastases, while the IMDC intermediate-risk group had a similar mOS to the favourable-risk one. Applying the Meet-URO score, three risk groups were identified: group 1 (55.2% of patients) with a score of 0-3, group 2 (38.5%) with a score of 4-8 and group 3 (6.3%) with a score of 9. Compared to group 1 (mOS: 39.4 months), a statistically significant worse mOS was observed in group 2 (11.2 months) and group 3 (3.2 months) patients, respectively. The Meet-URO c-index score was 0.640, showing a higher discriminative ability than the IMDC score (c-index: 0.568). Conclusion: This analysis showed that the Meet-URO score provides a more accurate prognostic stratification than the IMDC score in mRCC patients treated with ⩾second-line cabozantinib besides nivolumab. Moreover, it is an easy-to-use tool with no additional costs for clinical practice (web-calculator is available at: https://proviso.shinyapps.io/Meet-URO15_score/). Future investigations will include the application of the Meet-URO score to the first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies

The prognostic value of peripheral blood inflammatory indices early variation in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with nivolumab (Δ-Meet-URO analysis)

Background: Immunotherapy has improved the treatment landscape of mRCC pts and identifying biomarkers for patients’ selection is clinically needed. Inflammatory indices from peripheral blood showed a prognostic value in different tumors and therapies, including immunotherapy. These biomarkers are inexpensive and readily available in clinical practice. We aimed to assess the prognostic role of the dynamic evaluation of these indices in immunotherapy-naïve pretreated mRCC pts. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 multicentric retrospective study enrolled 571 pretreated mRCC pts receiving nivolumab. The Δ-Meet-URO was a secondary analysis on the early variation through the first four cycles of therapy compared with baseline (difference, delta - Δ) of white blood cells, platelets and inflammatory indices, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII, platelets x NLR), their comparison with baseline values and correlation with treatment response, overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The baseline and Δ cut-offs were identified by ROC curves for OS. Results: The analysis was performed on 422 mRCC pts (74% of the entire cohort). Patients with ΔNeutrophils < 730 at 2nd, 3rd and 4th cycles were more responders (p < 0.001, p = 0.003 and p < 0.001) with longer mPFS (11 vs 6.1 months, p = 0.033) and mOS (46.9 vs 20.8 months, p = 0.046) compared to ΔNeutrophils ≥ 730. There was a significant interaction between baseline and ΔNeutrophils on PFS (p = 0.047). Pts with baseline neutrophils ≥ 4330/mm3 had longer mPFS when ΔNeutrophils < 730 (p = 0.002), whilst no difference was observed in those pts with baseline neutrophils < 4330/mm3 according to ΔNeutrophils (p = 0.46). Similar non-significant trends were observed in mOS. Patients with ΔNLR < 0.5 at 3rd and 4th cycles were more responders (p = 0.004 and p = 0.001, respectively) with doubled mPFS (12.1 vs 6.4 months, p = 0.007) and mOS (46.9 vs 21.7 months, p = 0.062) compared to ΔNLR ≥ 0.5. No significant interaction between baseline NLR and ΔNLR was observed in PFS and OS, suggesting a similar association between ΔNLR and PFS or OS, regardless of the baseline NLR cut-off of 3.2. The multivariable analyses confirmed all these results. Conclusions: The early assessment of NLR and neutrophils variations during immunotherapy for mRCC pts is a promising, affordable and non-invasive prognostic tool. Prospective and external validation analyses are warranted

The prognostic role of nephrectomy in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with immunotherapy according to the novel prognostic Meet-URO score: Subanalysis of the Meet-URO 15 study

Background: Most of mRCC pts with favorable and intermediate prognosis, according to the IMDC classification, are offered a nephrectomy. However, in the immunotherapy era, the role of nephrectomy is still unclear. In the Meet-URO 15 study we reported the higher prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score compared to the IMDC score, by the addition of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the presence of bone metastases to the IMDC score, identifying five categories with progressively worse prognosis. For this reason, we aimed to explore the prognostic impact of the previous nephrectomy (PN) on mRCC pts receiving immunotherapy and according to the Meet-URO score groups. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicentric retrospective analysis on 571 pretreated mRCC pts receiving nivolumab. Univariable analysis of the correlation between PN and overall survival (OS) and multivariate analysis adjusted for IMDC score, therapy line, NLR and metastatic sites were performed. The interaction of PN with the Meet-URO prognostic groups was then evaluated. Results: 503/571 pts (88%) underwent PN. A reduced risk of death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; p< 0.001) and higher mOS and OS rate were observed in pts with PN than without (mOS: 36 vs 13 monhts; 1-year-OS 72% vs 52% and 2-year-OS 57% vs 24%, respectively). The reduced risk of death for pts who underwent PN was confirmed at the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49-0.97; p= 0.032). The percentage of pts receiving PN progressively reduced through the five Meet-URO prognostic groups (PN: group 1: 98%, group 2: 95%, group 3: 84%, group 4: 79%, group 5: 59%). No significant interaction was observed between the PN and Meet-URO score when all the five groups were considered (p= 0.17). A significant interaction was observed when the Meet-URO groups 1,2 and 3 were taken together (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.63; p< 0.001), highlighting the significant protective role of the PN on OS for these three groups. For the Meet-URO groups 4 and 5, the interaction was indeed not significant (HR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51-1.30; p= 0.39). Conclusions: PN has a favourable prognostic impact on pretreated mRCC pts receiving immunotherapy. This benefit may be limited to mRCC pts with more favorable diseases as belonging to Meet-URO prognostic groups 1, 2 and 3. Further analysis of the type of PN (i.e., radical vs cytoreductive) is ongoing and confirmatory prospective evaluations are warranted

First line avelumab in PD-L1+ve metastatic or locally advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) patients unfit for cisplatin (cis): The ARIES trial

Background: Avelumab (ave) was approved as maintenance therapy after platinum-based first line (1L) therapy for patients (pts) with aUC based on ph. 3 Javelin Bladder 100 study (NCT02603432), showing significant overall survival (OS) improvement. Here we tested the activity of ave as 1L of therapy in cis-unfit pts with aUC and PD-L1+ve expression. Methods: ARIES is a single-arm, multi-site, open-label phase II trial. Enrolled pts had aUC, were cis-unfit (at least one of: ECOG-PS = 2, CrCl < 60 mL/min, grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy/hearing loss, progression within 6-mos before the end of neo/adj chemo), had not previously received chemo for aUC and PD-L1≥5% (SP263) centrally assessed. Pts received ave 10 mg/Kg IV Q2W until progression, unacceptable toxicity and withdrawal, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was the 1-year OS. Key secondary endpoints were median-OS, -PFS, ORR and safety. Results: A total of 198 eligible cis-unfit pts have been tested for PD-L1 and 71 (35.6%) have been found positive. Among enrolled patients (N = 71), median age was 75 y, 35 (49.3%) had visceral disease, and 22 (31.0%) had ECOG-PS = 2; 50 (70.4%) had CrCl < 60 mL/min and 9 (12.7%) progressed within 6-mos from the end of neo/adj chemo. At the cut-off data (Oct 7, 2021), median follow up was 9.0 mo and 13 patients are still on treatment. The median OS was 10.0 mos (95% CI, 5.7-14.3), and 40.8% of patients were alive at 1-year. The ORR for all patients was 22.5%; complete response, 1.4% (n = 1); partial response, 21.1% (n = 15). Clinical benefit was 43.6% (n = 31). Median PFS was 2.0 mos (95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Among the 56 pts who received at least 3 cycles (29 days) of therapy the median OS was 16.0 vs 1.0 mos. Five (7.0%) grade 3 ave-related adverse events, and no treatment-related death were reported. Conclusions: Ave is active and safe in pts with cis-unfit, PD-L1+ve aUC and poor baseline characteristics

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in central and southern Italian patients

INTRODUCTION: Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for most hereditary breast/ovarian cancers and are associated with male breast cancer. Furthermore, constitutional mutations in these genes may occur in breast/ovarian cancer patients that do not meet stringent criteria of autosomal-dominant predisposition. The relevance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in such patients is still debated. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the impact of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population of patients from central and southern Italy. We analyzed the BRCA1 and BRCA2 coding regions in 136 unrelated probands: 117 females with breast/ovarian cancer and 19 males with breast cancer. This population of patients was mostly representative of cases who are at risk for hereditary susceptibility, but who do not meet stringent criteria of autosomal-dominant predisposition. METHODS: Probands, subclassified as follows, were consecutively recruited depending on informed consent from patients attending breast cancer clinics in Rome and Naples. Selection criteria for females were as follows: breast cancer with breast cancer family history [one to two first-/second-degree relative(s), n = 55]; breast cancer diagnosed before age 40 years (no breast/ovarian cancer family history, n = 28); bilateral breast cancer (regardless of age and family history, n =10); breast cancer associated with gastrointestinal, pancreatic or uterine cancers [synchronous/metachronous or in first-degree relative(s), n = 9]; breast or ovarian cancer with family history of breast-ovarian/ovarian cancer (at least 1 first-/ second-degree relative, n = 10); and ovarian cancer with no breast/ovarian cancer family history (n = 5). Males with breast cancer were recruited regardless of age and family history. BRCA1 exon 11 and BRCA2 exons 10 and 11 were screened by PTT. Coding BRCA1 exons 2, 3, 5-10 and 12-24 and BRCA2 exons 2-9 and 12-27 were screened by SSCP. Primers are listed in Table 1. In 27 cases, analyzed by PTT along the entire BRCA1 coding sequence, BRCA1 SSCP analysis was limited to exons 2, 5, 20 and 24. Mutations were verified by sequence analysis on two independent blood samples. RESULTS: Deleterious germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations were detected in 11 out of 136 cases (8%). Only three BRCA2 mutations were novel. One BRCA2 mutation recurred in two unrelated probands. Table 2 shows the mutations and data concerning carriers and their families. Table 3 shows correlations between BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations and sex, age at disease diagnosis and familial clustering of breast/ovarian cancer in the total patient population. Table 4 shows the proportions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in females with site-specific breast and breast-ovarian/ovarian cancer. Table 5 shows the frequency of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in males. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively, accounted for four out of 68 (6%) and one out of 68 (1%) cases diagnosed before age 50 years, and for one out of 68 (1%) and five out of 68 (7%) cases diagnosed after age 50 years. BRCA1 mutations were found in five out of 117 females (4%) and in none of 19 males (0%), and BRCA2 mutations were found in four out of 117 females (3%) and in two out of 19 males (10%). The proportions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations coincided in site-specific female breast cancers (four out of 102; ie 4% each). BRCA1 and BRCA2 equally contributed to female breast cancers, with no familial clustering in those diagnosed before age 40 years (one out of 28; 4% each), and to female breast cancers, all ages, with familial clustering in one to two relatives (three out of 55; ie 5% each). In the latter subset of cases, BRCA1 mostly accounted for tumours diagnosed before age 40 years (two out of eight; 25%), and BRCA2 for tumours diagnosed after age 50 years (three out of 34; 9%). Regardless of family history, the respective contributions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to site-specific female breast cancers diagnosed before age 40 years were 8% (three out of 36) and 3% (one out of 36). One BRCA1 mutation was detected among the 15 female probands from breast-ovarian/ovarian cancer families (7%). Among male breast cancers, BRCA2 mutations were identified in one out of five (20%) cases with family history and in one out of 14 (7%) apparently sporadic cases. No BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were found in female probands with nonfamilial bilateral breast cancer (10 cases) or in those with breast cancer associated with gastrointestinal, pancreatic or uterine cancers, synchronous/metachronous or in first-degree relative(s) (nine cases). These cases were all diagnosed after age 40 years. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate a lack of relevant founder effects for BRCA1- and BRCA2-related disease in the sample of patients studied, which is consistent with other Italian studies and with ethnical and historical data. Overall, the contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to breast/ovarian cancer in Italian patients appears to be less significant than in patients from communities with founder mutations. The present study is in agreement with direct estimates on other outbred populations, indicating that 7-10% of all female breast cancers that occur in patients aged under 40 years are due to BRCA1/BRCA2. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 equally contributed to site-specific breast cancers who had one/two breast cancer-affected first-/second-degree relative(s) or who were diagnosed within age 40 years in the absence of family history. This is consistent with recent data that indicated that the respective frequencies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are comparable in early onset breast cancer. Considering the total population of patients analyzed here, however, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were mostly found in cases with disease diagnosis before and after age 50 years, respectively. Moreover, in cases with familial clustering of site-specific breast cancer, BRCA1 mostly accounted for tumours diagnosed before age 40 years, and BRCA2 for tumours diagnosed after age 50 years. This is in agreement with a trend, which has been observed in other populations, for the proportion of cases with BRCA2 mutations to increase, and the proportion with mutations in BRCA1 to decrease, as the age at cancer onset increases. As in other studies, the frequency of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations taken together was lower than the estimated frequencies at comparable ages for all susceptibility alleles derived from the Contraceptive and Steroid Hormones (CASH) study. The discrepancy between direct data deriving from BRCA1/BRCA2 mutational analysis and CASH estimates could be due to several factors, including contribution of gene(s) other than BRCA1/BRCA2, differences between populations and relative insensitivity of mutational screening. Only BRCA1 mutations were found in breast/ovarian and site-specific ovarian cancer families. BRCA2, but not BRCA1 mutations were found in the male breast cancers. The overall proportion of males with BRCA2 mutations was high when compared with data from other studies on outbred populations, but was low compared with data from populations with founder effects. The present results should be regarded as an approximation, because the following types of mutation are predicted to escape detection by the screening strategy used: mutations in noncoding regions; missense mutations within BRCA1 exon 11 and BRCA2 exons 10 and 11; large gene deletions; and mutations within the first and last 180 nucleotides of the amplicons analyzed by PTT

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet‐Uro 19BEYOND study

Background Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC. Methods In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated. Results After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2–4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1–6 vs. 2–5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2). Conclusion After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC

The Geriatric G8 Score Is Associated with Survival Outcomes in Older Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the ADHERE Prospective Study of the Meet-URO Network

Introduction: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) have been increasingly offered to older patients with prostate cancer (PC). However, prognostic factors relevant to their outcome with ARPIs are still little investigated. Methods and Materials: The Meet-URO network ADHERE was a prospective multicentre observational cohort study evaluating and monitoring adherence to ARPIs metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients aged ≥70. Cox regression univariable and multivariable analyses for radiographic progression-free (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were performed. Unsupervised median values and literature-based thresholds where available were used as cut-offs for quantitative variables. Results: Overall, 234 patients were enrolled with a median age of 78 years (73–82); 86 were treated with abiraterone (ABI) and 148 with enzalutamide (ENZ). With a median follow-up of 15.4 months (mo.), the median rPFS was 26.0 mo. (95% CI, 22.8–29.3) and OS 48.8 mo. (95% CI, 36.8–60.8). At the MVA, independent prognostic factors for both worse rPFS and OS were Geriatric G8 assessment ≤ 14 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004) and PSA decline ≥50% (p < 0.001 for both); time to castration resistance ≥ 31 mo. and setting of treatment (i.e., post-ABI/ENZ) for rPFS only (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively); age ≥78 years for OS only (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Baseline G8 screening is recommended for mCRPC patients aged ≥70 to optimise ARPIs in vulnerable individuals, including early introduction of palliative care

Fecal microbiota transplantation to improve efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma (TACITO trial)

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the 6° most common cancer in men and the 8° in women in the USA. In Italy RCC incidence was 11,500 new cases in 2017, while mortality was 3,371 cases in 2015. Increasing evidence suggests that response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), a novel treatment for advanced RCC (aRCC) and other epithelial tumors, can be influenced by the patient gut microbiota. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a novel treatment option aimed to restore healthy gut microbiota, and is the most effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infection. Preliminary nonrandomized findings show that FMT is able to improve efficacy of ICIs in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this study is to evaluate, through a double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, the efficacy of targeted FMT (from donors who are responding to ICIs) in improving response rates to ICIs in subjects with aRCC. Methods: 50 patients who are about to receive, or have started by <8 weeks, pembrolizumab + axitinib as first-line therapy for aRCC will be enrolled. Exclusion criteria include major comorbidities, concomitant GI or autoimmune disorders, or HIV, HBV, HCV infection, continuative corticosteroid therapy, previous treatment with systemic immune-suppressants or immune-modulatory drugs, antibiotic therapy within 4 weeks prior to enrollment. Stool samples and clinical data will be collected at baseline. Then, patients will be randomized to donor FMT or placebo FMT. They will receive the first infusion by colonoscopy and then oral frozen fecal or placebo capsules (8 capsules t.i.d.) 90 and 180 days after the first FMT. Stool donors will be searched among long-term (>12 months) responders to ICIs, and will be selected by following protocols recommended by international guidelines. Patients in the FMT group will always receive feces from the same donor throughout the three fecal transplants. Frozen fecal batches and frozen fecal capsules will be manufactured according to international guidelines. Patients will be followed-up 7, 15, 30, 90, 180, 270, and 360 days after randomization for clinical evaluation and collection of stool samples. Patients will also undergo radiological assessment at 90, 180, 270 and 360 days after randomization. Microbiome analysis will be performed with shotgun metagenomics. The primary endpoint is the progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: objective response rate at 12 months; overall survival at 12 months; adverse events after FMT; microbiome changes after FMT. Sample size calculation was based on the hypothesis that FMT can improve the 1-year PFS rate from 60% (reported 1-year PFS for SOC) to 80% wen associated to SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04758507