Diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma in Italy: A Delphi consensus statement

Background: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA)/biliary tract cancer recommend genomic profiling to guide treatment decisions. Variable access to such profiling across Italy means many oncologists are unfamiliar with when and how to conduct genetic testing and prescribe targeted treatments. Methods: A Scientific Board of Italian oncologists who treat CCA (the authors) developed recommendations, based on recent clinical evidence, for using molecular testing in diagnosing, assessing, and treating CCA in Italy. The Delphi process was used to reach consensus on these recommendations among 38 Italian oncologists. Consensus was considered to be met if >= 66.7 % of the panel agreed or strongly agreed with each statement. Findings: Consensus was reached on 28 statements across four themes: (1) epidemiology and risk factors; (2) diagnosis, including molecular diagnosis; (3) treatment selection; and (4) treatment safety. Interpretation: These recommendations should aid Italian clinicians in selecting appropriate treatment options for their patients

Association of immune-related adverse events with the outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer

Neoplàsies gastrointestinals; Immunoteràpia; Biomarcadors tumoralsNeoplasias gastrointestinales; Inmunoterapia; Biomarcadores tumoralesGastrointestinal neoplasms; Immunotherapy; Tumor biomarkersBackground Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a tremendous activity in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but a consistent fraction of patients does not respond. Prognostic/predictive markers are needed. Despite previous investigations in other tumor types, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have not been well evaluated in patients with MSI-H cancers treated with ICIs. Methods We conducted an international cohort study at tertiary cancer centers collecting clinic-pathological features from 331 patients with MSI-H mCRC treated with ICIs. Of note, the irAEs were summarized using a ‘burden score’ constructed in a way that the same score value could be obtained by cumulating many low-grade irAEs or few high-grade irAEs; as a result, the lower the burden the better. Clearly, the irAE burden is not a baseline information, thus it was modeled as a time-dependent variable in univariable and multivariable Cox models. Results Among 331 patients, irAEs were reported in 144 (43.5%) patients. After a median follow-up time of 29.7 months, patients with higher burden of skin, endocrine and musculoskeletal irAEs (the latter two’s effect was confirmed at multivariable analysis) had longer overall survival (OS), as opposed to gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, liver, renal and other irAEs, which showed an harmful effect. Similar results were observed for progression-free survival (PFS). Based on the results retrieved from organ-specific irAEs, ‘aggregated’ burden scores were developed to distinguish ‘protective’ (endocrine and musculoskeletal) and ‘harmful’ (gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, hepatic) irAEs showing prognostic effects on OS and PFS. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that not all irAEs could exert a protective effect on oncologic outcome. An easy-to-use model for ICIs toxicity (burden score of protective and harmful irAEs) may be used as surrogate marker of response

Molecular profile and its clinical impact of IDH1 mutated versus IDH1 wild type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; MutationColangiocarcinoma intrahepático; MutaciónColangiocarcinoma intrahepàtic; MutacióIDH1-mutated cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are an interesting group of neoplasia with particular behavior and therapeutic implications. The aim of the present work is to highlight the differences characterizing IDH1m and IDH1wt CCAs in terms of genomic landscape. 284 patients with iCCA treated for resectable, locally advanced or metastatic disease were selected and studied with the FOUNDATION Cdx technology. A comparative genomic analysis and survival analyses for the most relevant altered genes were performed between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients. Overall, 125 patients were IDH1m and 122 IDH1wt. IDH1m patients showed higher mutation rates compared to IDH1wt in CDKN2B and lower mutation rates in several genes including TP53, FGFR2, BRCA2, ATM, MAP3K1, NOTCH2, ZNF703, CCND1, NBN, NF1, MAP3KI3, and RAD21. At the survival analysis, IDH1m and IDH1wt patients showed no statistically differences in terms of survival outcomes, but a trend in favor of IDH1wt patients was observed. Differences in prognostic values of the most common altered genes were reported. In surgical setting, in IDH1m group the presence of CDKN2A and CDKN2B mutations negatively impact DFS, whereas the presence of CDKN2A, CDKN2B, and PBRM1 mutations negatively impact OS. In advanced setting, in the IDH1m group, the presence of KRAS/NRAS and TP53 mutations negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 and PIK3CA mutations negatively impact OS; in the IDH1wt group, only the presence of MTAP mutation negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 mutation negatively impact OS. We highlighted several molecular differences with distinct prognostic implications between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients

Association of immune-related adverse events with the outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a tremendous activity in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but a consistent fraction of patients does not respond. Prognostic/predictive markers are needed. Despite previous investigations in other tumor types, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have not been well evaluated in patients with MSI-H cancers treated with ICIs. Methods: We conducted an international cohort study at tertiary cancer centers collecting clinic-pathological features from 331 patients with MSI-H mCRC treated with ICIs. Of note, the irAEs were summarized using a 'burden score' constructed in a way that the same score value could be obtained by cumulating many low-grade irAEs or few high-grade irAEs; as a result, the lower the burden the better. Clearly, the irAE burden is not a baseline information, thus it was modeled as a time-dependent variable in univariable and multivariable Cox models. Results: Among 331 patients, irAEs were reported in 144 (43.5%) patients. After a median follow-up time of 29.7 months, patients with higher burden of skin, endocrine and musculoskeletal irAEs (the latter two's effect was confirmed at multivariable analysis) had longer overall survival (OS), as opposed to gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, liver, renal and other irAEs, which showed an harmful effect. Similar results were observed for progression-free survival (PFS). Based on the results retrieved from organ-specific irAEs, 'aggregated' burden scores were developed to distinguish 'protective' (endocrine and musculoskeletal) and 'harmful' (gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, hepatic) irAEs showing prognostic effects on OS and PFS. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that not all irAEs could exert a protective effect on oncologic outcome. An easy-to-use model for ICIs toxicity (burden score of protective and harmful irAEs) may be used as surrogate marker of response

Molecular profile and its clinical impact of IDH1 mutated versus IDH1 wild type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

IDH1-mutated cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are an interesting group of neoplasia with particular behavior and therapeutic implications. The aim of the present work is to highlight the differences characterizing IDH1m and IDH1wt CCAs in terms of genomic landscape. 284 patients with iCCA treated for resectable, locally advanced or metastatic disease were selected and studied with the FOUNDATION Cdx technology. A comparative genomic analysis and survival analyses for the most relevant altered genes were performed between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients. Overall, 125 patients were IDH1m and 122 IDH1wt. IDH1m patients showed higher mutation rates compared to IDH1wt in CDKN2B and lower mutation rates in several genes including TP53, FGFR2, BRCA2, ATM, MAP3K1, NOTCH2, ZNF703, CCND1, NBN, NF1, MAP3KI3, and RAD21. At the survival analysis, IDH1m and IDH1wt patients showed no statistically differences in terms of survival outcomes, but a trend in favor of IDH1wt patients was observed. Differences in prognostic values of the most common altered genes were reported. In surgical setting, in IDH1m group the presence of CDKN2A and CDKN2B mutations negatively impact DFS, whereas the presence of CDKN2A, CDKN2B, and PBRM1 mutations negatively impact OS. In advanced setting, in the IDH1m group, the presence of KRAS/NRAS and TP53 mutations negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 and PIK3CA mutations negatively impact OS; in the IDH1wt group, only the presence of MTAP mutation negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 mutation negatively impact OS. We highlighted several molecular differences with distinct prognostic implications between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer: An early exploratory analysis of real-world data

Background: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial reported a survival benefit with the anti-programmed death cell ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of this new standard treatment in a real-world setting.Methods: The analysed population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the biliary tract treated with durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin at 17 Italian centres. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS), whereas secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) by baseline characteristics were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.Results: From February 2022 to November 2022, 145 patients were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 8.5 months (95% CI: 7.9-13.6), the median PFS was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.4-11.7). Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.9-12.9). The investigator-assessed confirmed ORR was 34.5%, and the disease control rate was 87.6%. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 137 patients (94.5%). Grades 3-4 AEs occurred in 51 patients (35.2%). The rate of immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) was 22.7%. Grades 3-4 imAEs occurred in 2.1% of the patients. In univariate analysis, non-viral aetiology, ECOG PS >0 and NLR >= 3 correlated with shorter PFS.Conclusion: The results reported in this first real-world analysis mostly confirmed the results achieved in the TOPAZ-1 trial in terms of PFS, ORR and safety

Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Introduction: The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively). In addition, palonosetron has been the first and, at present, the only 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to have a specific indication for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with MEC. The unique pharmacology of this antagonist is thought to partly explain its improved efficacy against delayed symptoms.Aims: To review the evidence underlying the use of palonosetron in preventing CINV.Evidence review: A recent meta-analysis consistently showed that palonosetron significantly increases the control of both emesis and nausea during the acute and delayed phases after single-day HEC or MEC. Consistent with these findings from trials that did not include an neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, randomized controlled trials recently showed that a triple combination with palonosetron achieves significantly better control of delayed CINV, particularly delayed nausea, in patients undergoing HEC or the high-risk combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC). Evidence from randomized studies also supports palonosetron as a valuable option to reduce the total corticosteroid dose administered in patients undergoing multiple cycles of MEC or AC chemotherapy. Additional benefits of palonosetron include the lack of a warning on cardiac safety and no known clinically significant drug-drug interactions.Place in therapy and conclusion: Evidence currently available indicates that palonosetron significantly adds to the clinician's ability to effectively control CINV in patients undergoing HEC or MEC. It is recommended in the international guidelines for the prevention of CINV caused by MEC. The high safety profile and the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose with no loss in efficacy against delayed CINV should also contribute to a wider use of palonosetron in clinical practice