PURPOSE: Approved systemic therapies for advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) have shown limited capacity to reduce tumor burden and no antitumor activity after progression to targeted agents (TAs). We investigated the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in patients with previously treated advanced GEP-NETs.PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase II trial with two parallel cohorts (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02678780 ) involving 21 institutions in 4 European countries. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed advanced grade 1-2 pancreatic (panNET) or GI (GI-NET) NETs with documented tumor progression after treatment with a TA (panNET) or somatostatin analogs (GI-NET). Patients were treated with lenvatinib 24 mg once daily until disease progression or treatment intolerance. The primary end point was overall response rate by central radiology review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, and safety.RESULTS: Between September 2015 and March 2017, a total of 111 patients were enrolled, with 55 (panNET) and 56 (GI-NET) patients in each cohort. The median follow-up was 23 months. The overall response rate was 29.9% (95% CI, 21.6 to 39.6): 44.2% (panNET) and 16.4% (GI-NET). The median (range) duration of response was 19.9 (8.4-30.8) and 33.9 (10.6-38.3) months in the panNET and GI-NET groups, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 15.7 months (95% CI, 14.1 to 19.5). The most common adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, and diarrhea; 93.7% of patients required dose reductions or interruptions.CONCLUSION: We report the highest centrally confirmed response reported to date with a multikinase inhibitor in advanced GEP-NETs, with a particularly strong response in the panNET cohort. This study provides novel evidence for the efficacy of lenvatinib in patients with disease progression following treatment with other TAs, suggesting the potential value of lenvatinib in the treatment of advanced GEP-NETs.

Intratumoral BO-112 combined with systemic anti–PD-1 shows immunotherapeutic potential to control tumors in patients primarily refractory to anti–PD-1.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have entailed a change of paradigm in the management of multiple malignant diseases and are acquiring a key role in an increasing number of clinical sceneries. However, since their mechanism of action is not limited to the tumor microenvironment, their systemic activity may lead to a wide spectrum of immune-related side effects. Although neurological adverse events are much less frequent than gastrointestinal, hepatic, or lung toxicity, with an incidence of <5%, their potential severity and consequent interruptions to cancer treatment make them of particular importance. Despite them mainly implying peripheral neuropathies, immunotherapy has also been associated with an increased risk of encephalitis and paraneoplastic disorders affecting the central nervous system, often appearing in a clinical context where the appropriate diagnosis and early management of neuropsychiatric symptoms can be challenging. Although the pathogenesis of these complications is not fully understood yet, the blockade of tumoral inhibitory signals, and therefore the elicitation of cytotoxic T-cell-mediated response, seems to play a decisive role. The aim of this review was to summarize the current knowledge about the pathogenic mechanisms, clinical manifestations, and therapeutic recommendations regarding the main forms of neurotoxicity related to checkpoint inhibitors.

Metastatic urothelial cancer, associated with a poor prognosis, is still major cause of cancer-related death, with scarce options of effective treatment after progression to platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2) has been identified as a new therapeutic target in medical oncology. However, despite the encouraging results in breast and gastric cancers, clinical trials with anti-Her-2 monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors have shown limited efficacy of this strategy in urothelial tumors. Notably, more favorable data have been recently shown that antibody-drug conjugates are currently emerging as a novel promising approach for Her-2 targeted therapy in advanced urothelial cancer.

Patients with cancer (PC) are at high risk of acquiring COVID-19 and can develop more serious complications. Deeper understanding of vaccines immunogenicity in this population is crucial for adequately planning vaccines programs. The ONCOVac study aimed to comprehensively assess the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 vaccine in terms of humoral and cellular response. We conducted a prospective, single-center study including patients with solid tumours treated with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), immunotherapy (IT) or chemotherapy (CT). Patients were enrolled previously to vaccination with mRNA-1273. We also involved health care workers (HCW) to serve as a control group. We took blood samples before first dose administration (BL), after first dose (1D), and after second dose (2D). The primary objective was to compare the rate and magnitude of T cell response after second dose whereas safety and humoral response were defined as secondary objectives. We also collected patient reported outcomes after both the first and second vaccine dose and a six-month follow-up period to diagnose incident COVID-19 cases was planned. The rate of specific anti-S serologic positivity (anti-S IgG cut-off point at 7,14 BAU/mL) was significantly higher in HCW compared to PC after 1D (100% versus 83.8%; p = 0.04), but similar after 2D (100% versus 95.8%; p = 0.5). This difference after 1D was driven by PC treated with CT (100% versus 64.5%; p = 0.001). Cellular response after 2D was significantly lower in PC than in HCW for both CD4+ (91.7% versus 59.7%; p = 0.001) and CD8+ (94.4% versus 55.6%; p < 0.001) T cells. We found a difference on pre-existing CD4+ T cell response in HCW comparing to PC (36% and 17%, p = 0.03); without difference in pre-existing CD8+ T cell response (31% and 23%, p = 0.5). After excluding patients with pre-existing T cell response, PC achieved even lower CD4+ (50.9% versus 95.5%, p < 0.001) and CD8+ (45.5% versus 95.5%, p < 0.001) T cell response compared with HCW. Regarding safety, PC reported notably more adverse events than HCW (96.6% versus 69.2%, p < 0.001). We demonstrated that PC showed a similar humoral response but a lower T cell response following two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccination. Further studies are needed to complement our results and determine the implication of low T cell response on clinical protection of PC against COVID-19.

Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy is the current standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, less than half of patients are candidates for this treatment, and 50% will develop metastatic disease. Adjuvant chemotherapy could be offered if neoadjuvant treatment has not been administered for suitable patients. It is important to reduce the risk of systemic recurrence and improve the prognosis of localized MIBC. Systemic therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma has evolved in recent years. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents, such as antibody-drug conjugates or FGFR inhibitors, are new therapeutic alternatives and have shown their benefit in advanced disease. Currently, several clinical trials are investigating the role of these drugs, as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy, in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings with promising outcomes. In addition, the development of predictive biomarkers could predict responses to neoadjuvant therapies.