Malignant melanoma is the third most common type of tumor that causes brain metastases. Patients with cerebral involvement have a dismal prognosis and their treatment is an unmet medical need. Brain involvement is a multistep process involving several signaling pathways such as Janus kinase/signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription (JAK/STAT), Phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Protein Kinase B (PI3K/AKT), Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Phosphatase and Tensin Homolog (PTEN). Recently therapy that targets the MAPK signaling (BRAF/MEK inhibitors) and immunotherapy (anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 agents) have changed the therapeutic approaches to stage IV melanoma. In contrast, there are no solid data about patients with brain metastases, who are usually excluded from clinical trials. Retrospective data showed that BRAF-inhibitors, alone or in combination with MEK-inhibitors have interesting clinical activity in this setting. Prospective data about the combinations of BRAF/MEK inhibitors have been recently published, showing an improved overall response rate. Short intracranial disease control is still a challenge. Several attempts have been made in order to improve it with combinations between local and systemic therapies. Immunotherapy approaches seem to retain promising activity in the treatment of melanoma brain metastasis as showed by the results of clinical trials investigating the combination of anti-CTL4 (Ipilimumab) and anti-PD1(Nivolumab). Studies about the combination or the sequential approach of target therapy and immunotherapy are ongoing, with immature results. Several clinical trials are ongoing trying to explore new approaches in order to overcome tumor resistance. At this moment the correct therapeutic choices for melanoma with intracranial involvement is still a challenge and new strategies are needed.

Genomic-oriented oncology has improved tumor classification, treatment options, and patient outcomes. However, genetic heterogeneity, tumor cell plasticity, and the ability of cancer cells to hijack the tumor microenvironment (TME) represent a major roadblock for cancer eradication. Recent biotechnological advances in organotypic cell cultures have revolutionized biomedical research, opening new avenues to explore the use of cancer organoids in functional precision oncology, especially when genomics alone is not a determinant. Here, we outline the potential and the limitations of tumor organoids in preclinical and translational studies with a particular focus on lung cancer pathogenesis, highlighting their relevance in predicting therapy response, evaluating treatment toxicity, and designing novel anticancer strategies. Furthermore, we describe innovative organotypic coculture systems to dissect the crosstalk with the TME and to test the efficacy of different immunotherapy approaches, including adoptive cell therapy. Finally, we discuss the potential clinical relevance of microfluidic mini-organ technology, capable of reproducing tumor vasculature and the dynamics of tumor initiation and progression, as well as immunomodulatory interactions among tumor organoids, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and immune cells, paving the way for next-generation immune precision oncology.

The introduction of immunotherapy revolutionized the treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma. Despite the impressive results associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), only a portion of patients obtain a response to this treatment. In this scenario, the research of predictive factors is fundamental to identify patients who may have a response and to exclude patients with a low possibility to respond. These factors can be host-associated, immune system activation-related, and tumor-related. Patient-related factors can vary from data obtained by medical history (performance status, age, sex, body mass index, concomitant medications, and comorbidities) to analysis of the gut microbiome from fecal samples. Tumor-related factors can reflect tumor burden (metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and circulating tumor DNA) or can derive from the analysis of tumor samples (driver mutations, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and myeloid cells). Biomarkers evaluating the immune system activation, such as IFN-gamma gene expression profile and analysis of circulating immune cell subsets, have emerged in recent years as significantly correlated with response to ICIs. In this manuscript, we critically reviewed the most updated literature data on the landscape of predictive factors in metastatic melanoma treated with ICIs. We focus on the principal limits and potentiality of different methods, shedding light on the more promising biomarkers.

Neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) represents a possible androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) resistance mechanism in metastatic castration resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC). As mCRPC with NED has been excluded from clinical trials evaluating ARPI efficacy, this study investigates the prognostic impact of NED in mCRPC patients treated with ARPIs. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 327 mCRPC patient data treated with Enzalutamide or Abiraterone in the first and second or successive lines of treatment. NED was assessed using prostate biopsy samples through immunohistochemical staining. Results: NED was confirmed in 32/327 (9.8%) mCRPC patients. In the overall population, mCRPC with NED showed worse PFS (4.38 vs. 11.48 months HR 2.505 [1.71–3.68] p < 0.05), disease control rate (DCR), and PSA response. In the first line setting, mCRPC with NED demonstrated worse PFS (8.5 vs. 14.9 months HR 2.13 [1.18–3.88], p < 0.05). Similarly, in the second or successive lines, mCRPC with NED showed worse PFS (4.0 vs. 7.5 months HR 2.43 [1.45–4.05] p < 0.05), DCR, PSA response and OS (12.53 vs. 18.03 months HR 1.86 [1.12–3.10] p < 0.05). The adverse impact of NED on PFS was consistence across all subgroups; we also noted a trend of worse PFS in patients with high vs. low NED. Conclusions: In our study, mCRPC with NED treated with Enzalutamide or Abiraterone showed worse clinical outcomes. NED assessment should be considered to optimize treatment decisions in the mCRPC setting.