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.

Pancreatic cancer represents a very challenging disease, with an increasing incidence and an extremely poor prognosis. Peculiar features of this tumor entity are represented by pancreatic exocrine insufficiency and an early and intense nutritional imbalance, leading to the highly prevalent and multifactorial syndrome known as cancer cachexia. Recently, also the concept of sarcopenic obesity has emerged, making the concept of pancreatic cancer malnutrition even more multifaceted and complex. Overall, these nutritional derangements play a pivotal role in contributing to the dismal course of this malignancy. However, their relevance is often underrated and their assessment is rarely applied in clinical daily practice with relevant negative impact for patients’ outcome in neoadjuvant, surgical, and metastatic settings. The proper detection and management of pancreatic cancer-related malnutrition syndromes are of primary importance and deserve a specific and multidisciplinary (clinical nutrition, oncology, etc.) approach to improve survival, but also the quality of life. In this context, the introduction of a “Nutritional Oncology Board” in routine daily practice, aimed at assessing an early systematic screening of patients and at implementing nutritional support from the time of disease diagnosis onward seems to be the right path to take.

Background: Advanced Hepatocarcinoma (HCC) is an important health problem worldwide. Recently, the REFLECT trial demonstrated the non‐inferiority of Lenvatinib compared to Sorafenib in I line setting, thus leading to the approval of new first‐line standard of care, along with Sorafenib.Aims and methods: With aim to evaluate the optimal choice between Sorafenib and Lenvatinib as primary treatment in clinical practice, we performed a multicentric analysis with the propensity score matching on 184 HCC patients.Results: The median overall survival (OS) were 15.2 and 10.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 7.0 and 4.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with Lenvatinib showed a 36% reduction of death risk (p = 0.0156), a 29% reduction of progression risk (p = 0.0446), a higher response rate (p < 0.00001) and a higher disease control rate (p = 0.002). Sorafenib showed to be correlated with more hand‐foot skin reaction and Lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. We highlighted the prognostic role of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG‐PS), bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase and eosinophils for Sorafenib. Conversely, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase and Neutrophil‐Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) resulted prognostic in Lenvatinib arm. Finally, we highlighted the positive predictive role of albumin > Normal Value (NV), ECOG > 0, NLR < 3, absence of Hepatitis C Virus positivity, and presence of portal vein thrombosis in favor of Lenvatinib arm. Eosinophil < 50 and ECOG > 0 negatively predicted the response to Sorafenib.Conclusion: SLenvatinib showed to better perform in a real‐word setting compared to Sorafenib. More researches are needed to validate the predictor factors of response to Lenvatinib rather than Sorafenib.

: Biliary tract cancer represents a heterogeneous group of malignancies characterized by dismal prognosis and scarce therapeutic options.In the last years a growing interest in BTCs pathology has e...