No gold standard treatment exists for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Clinical decision making is based on knowledge of prognostic and predictive factors that are extrapolated from clinical trials and, sometimes, are not reliably transferable to a real-world scenario. Moreover, misalignment between endpoints used in drug development and measures of outcome in clinical practice has been noted. The roles of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoints in the context of clinical trials are the subjects of lively debate. Information about these parameters in routine clinical practice is potentially useful to design new studies and/or to interpret the results of clinical research. This study analyzed the impact of patient and tumor characteristics on the major measures of outcome across different lines of treatment in a cohort of 472 patients treated for MBC. OS, PFS, and postprogression survival (PPS) were analyzed. The study showed how biological and clinical characteristics may have different prognostic value across different lines of therapy for MBC. After first-line treatment, the median PPS of luminal A, luminal B, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive groups was longer than 12 months. The choice of OS as a primary endpoint for clinical trials could not be appropriate with these subtypes. In contrast, OS could be an appropriate endpoint when PPS is expected to be low (e.g., triple-negative subtype after the first line; other subtypes after the third line). The potential implications of these findings are clinical and methodological.

Introduction: In the last few years, significant advances in molecular biology have provided new therapeutic options for colorectal cancer (CRC). The development of new drugs that target the immune response to cancer cells seems very promising and has already been established for other tumor types. In particular, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors seems to be an encouraging immunotherapeutic strategy. Areas covered: In this review, the authors provide an update of the current evidence related to this topic, though most immunotherapies are still in early-phase clinical trials for CRC. To understand the key role of immunotherapy in CRC, the authors discuss the delicate balance between immune-stimulating and immune-suppressive networks that occur in the tumor microenvironment. Expert opinion: Modulation of the immune system through checkpoint inhibition is an emerging approach in CRC therapy. Nevertheless, selection criteria that could enable the identification of patients who may benefit from these agents are necessary. Furthermore, potential prognostic and predictive immune biomarkers based on immune and molecular classifications have been proposed. As expected, additional studies are required to develop biomarkers, effective therapeutic strategies and novel combinations to overcome immune escape resistance and enhance effector response.

Molecular classifications of gastric cancers: Novel insights and possible future applications

According to current guidelines, endocrine therapy (ET) is recommended as first-line treatment of luminal-like metastatic breast cancer (MBC), whereas chemotherapy (CT) should be considered in presence of life-threatening disease. In daily practice, CT is often used outside of this clinical circumstance. Factors influencing first-line choice and the relative impact on outcome are unknown. A consecutive series of luminal-like HER2-negative MBC patients treated from 2004 to 2014 was analyzed to test the association of disease- and patient-related factors with the choice of first-line treatment (ET vs. CT). A propensity score method was used to estimate impact of first-line strategy on outcome. Of 604 consecutive luminal-like MBC patients identified, 158 cases were excluded due to unknown or positive HER2-status. Among 446 HER2-negative cases, 171 (38%) received first-line CT. On multivariate analysis, the only factors significantly associated with lower CT use were old age (OR 0.25, 95%C.I. 0.13-0.49) or presence of bone metastases only (OR 0.26, 95%C.I. 0.13-0.53). In propensity score matched population, no differences were observed between CT and ET as first-line treatment either in terms of overall survival (37.5 months and 33.4 months respectively, log-rank test, P = 0.62) or progression-free survival (13.3 months and 9.9 months respectively, log-rank test, P = 0.92). High percentage of patients with luminal-like MBC received CT as first-line therapy in real-life. The choice was mainly driven by age and site of metastases. With the limitations of a non-randomized comparison, no differences on patients' outcome were observed depending on the first-line strategy.

Introduction.: Despite the availability of several therapeutic options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), no robust predictive factors are available to help clinical decision making. Nevertheless, a decreasing benefit from first line to subsequent lines of treatment is commonly observed. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of benefit from first-line therapy on outcome with subsequent lines. Methods.: We analyzed a consecutive series of 472 MBC patients treated with chemotherapy (CT) and/or endocrine therapy (ET) between 2004 and 2012. We evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) at first (PFS1), second, third, and fourth therapeutic lines, according to treatment (ET and/or CT) and tumor subtypes. Results.: In the whole cohort, median overall survival was 34 months, and median PFS1 was 9 months. A 6-month benefit was shown by 289 patients (63.5%) at first line, 128 (40.5%) at second line, 76 (33.8%) at third line, and 34 (23.3%) at fourth line. Not having a 6-month benefit at PFS1 was associated with less chance of benefit at second line (odds ratio [OR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29–0.77, p = .0026) and at any line beyond first (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.24–0.62, p < .0001). In the total series, after stratification for tumor subtypes, a strong predictive effect was observed among HER2-positive tumors (OR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.05–0.73, p = .0152). Conclusion.: Our results suggest that the absence of at least a 6-month benefit in terms of PFS with first-line therapy predicts a reduced probability of benefit from subsequent therapeutic lines, especially in HER2-positive disease. Implications for Practice: This study supports evidence showing that the absence of a 6-month benefit in terms of progression-free survival with first-line therapy predicts a lack of benefit from subsequent therapeutic lines in metastatic breast cancer. The random distribution of benefit experienced by a subset of the cohort further spurs an interest in identifying predictive factors capable of identifying the most appropriate therapeutic strategy.