PURPOSE: ARTO (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03449719 ) is a multicenter, phase II randomized clinical trial testing the benefit of adding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients with oligometastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients were affected by oligometastatic CRPC as defined as three or less nonvisceral metastatic lesions. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either AAP alone (control arm) or AAP with concomitant SBRT to all the sites of disease (experimental arm). Primary end point was the rate of biochemical response (BR), defined as a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decrease ≥50% from baseline measured at 6 months from treatment start. Complete BR (CBR), defined as PSA < 0.2 ng/mL at 6 months from treatment, and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary end points. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients were enrolled between January 2019 and September 2022. BR was detected in 79.6% of patients (92% v 68.3% in the experimental v control arm, respectively), with an odds ratio (OR) of 5.34 (95% CI, 2.05 to 13.88; P = .001) in favor of the experimental arm. CBR was detected in 38.8% of patients (56% v 23.2% in the experimental v control arm, respectively), with an OR of 4.22 (95% CI, 2.12 to 8.38; P < .001). SBRT yielded a significant PFS improvement, with a hazard ratio for progression of 0.35 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.57; P < .001) in the experimental versus control arm. CONCLUSION: The trial reached its primary end point of biochemical control and PFS, suggesting a clinical advantage for SBRT in addition to first-line AAP treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Near 75% of all breast cancers (BC) express estrogen receptors (ER) and/or progesterone receptors (PgR), while up to 20% of BC show an overexpression/amplification of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2). Around 50% of all HER2-overexpressing BC show the coexistence of both HER2 overexpression/amplification and ER and/or PgR overexpression. Numerous in vitro and in vivo studies suggest the existence of a cross-talk between their downstream pathways, which seem to affect the natural history, response to therapy and outcome of patients affected by this subset of BC. Meta-analyses or subgroup analysis of numerous neo-/adjuvant trials demonstrated significant clinical implications deriving from ER/HER2 co-existence, consisting in a different pattern of relapse and dissimilar outcome in response to anti-HER2 therapy. However, only two randomized trials in early disease and three in advanced disease specifically addressed the issue whether a combined approach with both hormonal and anti-HER2 therapy would have a better therapeutic impact in this subset of BC compared to the lone anti-HER2 or hormonal therapies (HT). None of these trials demonstrated improvements in overall survival, even though several efficacy end-points such as progression free survival, in advanced setting, or pCR rates in neoadjuvant setting, often favored the combined hormonal and anti-HER2 therapeutic approach. In the next few years, a certain number of ongoing randomized trials, both in neoadjuvant and advanced setting, will evaluate the efficacy of new anti-HER2 drugs, T-DM1 and pertuzumab, in combination with HT, helping to improve the therapeutic strategy for this specific subtype of breast tumors.

Introduction: Nutritional care is a cornerstone of cancer treatment, with the potential to significantly improve patient outcomes by addressing malnutrition and enhancing recovery. Despite growing awareness, the integration of evidence-based nutritional strategies into oncology remains inconsistent. Following a 2020 survey that highlighted critical gaps, the NutriOnc Research Group launched targeted initiatives to raise awareness and improve practices. This study reassesses progress in integrating nutritional care and identifies persistent challenges. Methods: A 29-question survey was conducted in 2024 among 73 early-career oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, and nutrition specialists across Italy. Respondents provided insights into clinical nutrition program availability, multidisciplinary team composition, screening practices, and educational needs. Results: Encouraging advancements were noted, with 80.8% of respondents reporting the presence of clinical nutrition programs, compared to fewer structured efforts in 2020. However, only 26.0% included nutrition specialists in multidisciplinary teams, and barriers such as financial constraints, limited product availability, and the absence of trained professionals persisted. While 82.2% performed nutritional screening, variability in tools and practices highlighted the need for standardization. Strikingly, 98.6% expressed a strong demand for advanced education on clinical nutrition, emphasizing the need for innovative and accessible training programs. Conclusions: This study reveals a landscape of progress tempered by persistent inequities. To close the gap, oncology must embrace standardized protocols, expand access to trained nutrition specialists, and invest in educational initiatives. The findings offer actionable insights for transforming cancer care through nutrition, underscoring its potential to improve survival, quality of life, and overall treatment success.