Background: Advanced hormone-receptor positive HER2 negative breast cancer is a common and a very heterogeneous disease. Hormone therapy is the main first line treatment of choice, given alone or in combination with other agents that have shown to improve patient outcomes, Nevertheless, treatment remains generally palliative rather than curative. Sequencing of such treatment remains challenging, especially with resurgence of variable resistance patterns. Multiple attempts have been made to overcome resistance and improve patient survival, yet resistance remains not very well understood and metastatic cancer remains a disease with dismal prognosis. Methods: In this paper, we searched pubmed database as well as local and international meetings for all studies discussing advanced and metastatic hormone-receptor-positive, her2-negative breast cancer, hormonal treatment, resistance to hormonal treatment, mechanism of resistance, and means to overcome such resistance. Conclusion: There does not exist an optimal treatment sequence for hormone-receptor-positive, her2-negative advanced breast cancer. However, after review of literature, a reasonable approach may be starting with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, or fulvestrant in absence of visceral crisis, in addition to ensuring adequate ovarian function suppression in pre/peri-menopausal women. Aromatase inhibitors and fulvestrant seem to be superior. Resistance to such agents is increasing, mostly attributed to genetic and molecular changes. Multiple modalities are addressed to overcome such resistance including use of CKD4/6 inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors and PI3K inhibitors in addition to other agents under study, all with promising results. CDK4/6 inhibitors work best when used in frontline setting. Finally, treatment of breast cancer remains a growing field, and more studies are to be awaited.

The treatment landscape in oncology has witnessed a major revolution with the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors: anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 and anti-CTLA-4. These agents enhance the immune response towards cancer cells instead of targeting the tumor itself, contrary to standard chemotherapy. Although long-lasting durable responses have been observed with immune checkpoints inhibitors, the response rate remains relatively low in many cases. Some patients respond in the beginning but then eventually develop acquired resistance to treatment and progress. Other patients having primary resistance never respond. Multiple studies have been conducted to further elucidate these variations in response in different tumor types and different individuals. This paper provides an overview of the mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors and highlights the possible therapeutic approaches under investigation aiming to overcome such resistance in order to improve the clinical outcomes of cancer patients.

Gastric cancer remains a disease with a dismal prognosis. Extensive efforts to find targetable disease drivers in gastric cancer were implemented to improve patient outcomes. Beyond anti-HER2 therapy, MET pathway seems to be culprit of cancer invasiveness with MET-overexpressing tumors having poorer prognosis. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the HGF/MET pathway were studied in MET-positive gastric cancer, but no substantial benefit was proven. Some patients responded in early phase trials but later developed resistance. Others failed to show any benefit at all. Etiologies of resistance may entail inappropriate patient selection with a lack of MET detection standardization, tumor alternative pathways, variable MET amplification, and genetic variation. Optimizing MET detection techniques and better understanding the MET pathway, as well as tumor bypass mechanisms, are an absolute need to devise means to overcome resistance using targeted therapy alone, or in combination with other synergistic agents to improve outcomes of patients with MET-positive GC.

Immunotherapy has changed the treatment paradigm in multiple solid and hematologic malignancies. However, response remains limited in a significant number of cases, with tumors developing innate or acquired resistance to checkpoint inhibition. Certain “hot” or “immune-sensitive” tumors become “cold” or “immune-resistant”, with resultant tumor growth and disease progression. Multiple factors are at play both at the cellular and host levels. The tumor microenvironment (TME) contributes the most to immune-resistance, with nutrient deficiency, hypoxia, acidity and different secreted inflammatory markers, all contributing to modulation of immune-metabolism and reprogramming of immune cells towards pro- or anti-inflammatory phenotypes. Both the tumor and surrounding immune cells require high amounts of glucose, amino acids and fatty acids to fulfill their energy demands. Thus, both compete over one pool of nutrients that falls short on needs, obliging cells to resort to alternative adaptive metabolic mechanisms that take part in shaping their inflammatory phenotypes. Aerobic or anaerobic glycolysis, oxidative phosphorylation, tryptophan catabolism, glutaminolysis, fatty acid synthesis or fatty acid oxidation, etc. are all mechanisms that contribute to immune modulation. Different pathways are triggered leading to genetic and epigenetic modulation with consequent reprogramming of immune cells such as T-cells (effector, memory or regulatory), tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) (M1 or M2), natural killers (NK) cells (active or senescent), and dendritic cells (DC) (effector or tolerogenic), etc. Even host factors such as inflammatory conditions, obesity, caloric deficit, gender, infections, microbiota and smoking status, may be as well contributory to immune modulation, anti-tumor immunity and response to immune checkpoint inhibition. Given the complex and delicate metabolic networks within the tumor microenvironment controlling immune response, targeting key metabolic modulators may represent a valid therapeutic option to be combined with checkpoint inhibitors in an attempt to regain immune function.

Background: Public health measures have imposed drastic reductions in cancer screening programs at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with an unknown impact on the diagnosis and staging of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Newly diagnosed CRC cases at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) were divided into two groups according to the timeline: pre-pandemic (1 January 2018–12 March 2020), and pandemic (13 March 2020–30 June 2021) periods. Colonoscopy, surgery, and staging at diagnosis during the pandemic period were compared to the pre-pandemic period. Results: 254 CRC diagnoses were made during the pre-pandemic period in comparison to 125 during the pandemic period. Mean diagnosis rates were lower in the pandemic period (7.8 vs. 9.8 diagnoses/month, p = 0.048). Colonoscopy deadlines were less respected in the pandemic period (51.7% vs. 38.3%, p = 0.049). The rate of elective surgery did not differ (2.9 vs. 3.5 surgeries/month, p = 0.39) and mean delays were similar (58.6 vs. 60.4 days, p = 0.77). Stages at diagnosis did not differ (p = 0.17). Most of the delayed colonoscopies led to a stage 0 or I CRC (p = 0.2). Conclusion: In our center, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decreased rate of CRC diagnosis and increased endoscopic delays without affecting the rate of advanced stage disease. Delays to surgery were quite similar once the CRC diagnosis was established.

The Arab World has sadly witnessed protracted conflict affecting several of its regions in recent years. Conflict-affected populations have been significantly impacted by chronic deficiencies in medical care including unprecedented numbers of refugees and migrants requiring ongoing support in neighbouring countries. Humanitarian response to crisis has historically focused on the supply of nutrition, water, and emergent trauma relief, followed by control and prevention of infections. Prevention and management of non-communicable diseases, specifically cancer, have been relatively neglected; however, with regional conflicts lasting for many years, cancer care has become an increasingly urgent issue to be addressed. The humanitarian community has stressed the need for situational assessment regarding disease prevalence and available resources, with identification of specific regional challenges. Lack of infrastructure, important diagnostic and treatment modalities, clinical experts and regulatory bodies are the main obstacles to cancer care at all stages from screening and prevention to therapeutics and palliation. The initial step to improving cancer care provision should be implementing needs-based priority assessment and policies within the context of governing bodies that control and monitor performance. Collaboration and coordination among national and international organizations and stakeholders are essential to improve data collection on which to base resource allocation and address growing disparities in cancer outcomes.