Historically, metastatic melanoma was considered a highly lethal disease. However, recent advances in drug development have allowed a significative improvement in prognosis. In particular, BRAF/MEK inhibitors and anti-PD1 antibodies have completely revolutionized the management of this disease. Nonetheless, not all patients derive a benefit or a durable benefit from these therapies. To overtake this challenges, new clinically active compounds are being tested in the context of clinical trials. CDK4/6 inhibitors are drugs already available in clinical practice and preliminary evidence showed a promising activity also in melanoma. Herein we review the available literature to depict a comprehensive landscape about CDK4/6 inhibitors in melanoma. We present the molecular and genetic background that might justify the usage of these drugs, the preclinical evidence, the clinical available data, and the most promising ongoing clinical trials.

Approximately 40% of unselected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients develop brain metastases (BMs) during their disease, with considerable morbidity and mortality. The management of BMs in patients with NSCLC is a clinical challenge and requires a multidisciplinary approach to gain effective intracranial disease control. Over the last decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as a game-changer in the treatment landscape of advanced NSCLC, with significant improvements in survival outcomes, although patients with BMs are mostly underrepresented in randomized clinical trials. Moreover, the safety and activity of ICIs and radiotherapy combinations compared with single-agent or sequential modalities is still under evaluation to establish the optimal management of these patients. The aim of this review is to summarize the state-of-the-art of clinical evidence of ICIs intracranial activity and the main challenges of incorporating these agents in the treatment armamentarium of NSCLC patients with BMs.

PURPOSE: Oral problems in a group of oncological patients undergoing chemotherapy (CT) for solid tumors have been examined. Incidence and severity of patients’ self-reported oral problems have been evaluated along their interaction with age, gender, tumor diagnosis and stage, presence of mestastasis, CT agent type, and number of CT cycle. We also analyzed the presence of paraesthesia and anaesthesia and their predisposing factors associated with clinical and treatment-related variables. METHODS: Patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire to evaluate the onset and the intensity of oral and perioral pain, oral mucositis, salivary gland hypofunction, dysgeusia, dysphagia, dysphonia, and sensitivity neuropathy (paraesthesia or dysaesthesia) since the last CT infusion. We also investigated which types of medications have possibly been used and who recommended it, as well as patients’ degree of awareness about the possibility of oral problems arising during CT. RESULTS: We recruited 194 patients and obtained 491 questionnaires. We found that a metastatic disease was a risk factor for OM (OR 2.02, p = 0.026) and salivary gland hypofunction (OR 1.66, p = 0.042) and that platinum agents, compared to mitotic inhibitors, increased the risk of developing salivary gland hypofunction (OR 2.16, p = 0.013), dysphagia (OR 3.26, p = 0.001), and anaesthesia (OR 5.16, p = 0.041). Young age was a slight protective factor for most symptoms. The 80% of enrolled patients were informed by the oncologist about possible oral problems arising during CT. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted the importance of collecting observational data from the patients’ perspective on oral problems arising during the routine oncology practice, across a range of solid tumors and CT regimens. The relevance of these findings focused on the key role of the multidisciplinary team in advising the patients on the possible occurrence of oral problems, also by recommending their management.