Importance: Existing clinical trials favor neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT) followed by surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) and perioperative chemotherapy as the preferred modality for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, it is unclear whether these trial findings are reflected in the patterns of care and survival outcomes among patients in the clinical setting.Objective: To investigate survival outcomes in the clinical setting among patients with EC after various treatment modalities.Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study examined data from the National Cancer Database maintained by the American College of Surgeons and focused on patients with clinical stage II or III EC, excluding those with gastroesophageal junction cancer, who underwent trimodality therapy (NCRT followed by esophagectomy), definitive chemoradiation therapy (DCRT), radiotherapy (RT) alone, or perioperative chemotherapy from January 2006 to December 2020. Analyses were conducted from December 2023 to August 2024.Exposures: Perioperative chemotherapy, trimodality therapy, DCRT, and single-modality RT.Main Outcomes and Measures: A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to compare overall survival (OS) between treatment groups in the entire cohort, among patients with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, and among those older than 65 years. Landmark survival analysis at 6 months was performed to reduce survivorship bias.Results: The study included 57 116 patients (median age, 64 [IQR, 57-72] years; 45 410 [79.5%] male); 21 619 patients (37.9%) received trimodality therapy, 32 493 (57.1%) received DCRT, 2692 (4.7%) received single-modality RT, and 312 (0.5%) received perioperative chemotherapy. In the overall study population, 37 698 patients (66.0%) had EAC, and of the 312 patients that received perioperative chemotherapy, 283 (90.7%) had EAC. In adjusted survival analysis, perioperative chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28-0.39; P <.001) and trimodality therapy (AHR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.44-0.46; P < .001) were associated with improved OS compared with DCRT. In contrast, RT alone was associated with worse outcomes compared with DCRT (AHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.30-1.45; P < .001). The median OS for perioperative chemotherapy of 66.2 months (95% CI, 43.1-111.9 months; P < .001) was longer compared with that for DCRT alone (18.1 months; 95% CI, 17.8-18.4 months; P < .001). Trimodality therapy was associated with a median OS of 43.9 months (95% CI, 42.8-45.5 months; P < .001), which was shorter than that for perioperative chemotherapy but improved compared with DCRT and RT alone, which was associated with a median OS of 13.5 months (95% CI, 12.8-14.0 months; P < .001). In the subgroup of patients older than 65 years, those who received perioperative chemotherapy had longer median OS (56.7 months; 95% CI, 36.4-115.2 months; P < .001) compared with those receiving other treatment modalities (eg, trimodality therapy: 40.1 months; 95% CI, 38.1-42.0 months; P < .001). Patients who received RT alone had the worst median OS (13.6 months; 95% CI, 12.8-14.4 months; P < .001).Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with stage II to III EC, trimodality therapy was associated with improved OS compared with DCRT or RT alone for locally advanced EC and perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved OS for adenocarcinoma.

Locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) poses a significant and persistent challenge in terms of effective treatment. Traditionally, the primary strategy for managing LAEC has involved concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery. However, achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has proven to be inconsistent, and despite treatment, roughly half of patients experience locoregional recurrence or metastasis. Consequently, there has been a paradigm shift towards exploring the potential of immunotherapy in reshaping the landscape of LAEC management. Recent research has particularly focused on immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigating their application in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. These inhibitors, designed to block specific proteins in immune cells, are meant to enhance the immune system’s ability to target and combat cancer cells. Emerging evidence from these studies suggests the possibility of a mortality benefit, indicating that immunotherapy may contribute to improved overall survival rates for individuals grappling with esophageal cancer. This manuscript aims to meticulously review the existing literature surrounding neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy in the context of LAEC management. The intention is to thoroughly examine the methodologies and findings of relevant studies, providing a comprehensive synthesis of the current understanding of the impact of immunotherapy on esophageal cancer.

In the past decade, targeted therapies for solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), have advanced significantly, offering tailored treatment options for patients. However, individuals without targetable mutations pose a clinical challenge, as they may not respond to standard treatments like immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and novel targeted therapies. While the mechanism of action of ICIs seems promising, the lack of a robust response limits their widespread use. Although the expression levels of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on tumor cells are used to predict ICI response, identifying new biomarkers, particularly those associated with the tumor microenvironment (TME), is crucial to address this unmet need. Recently, inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) have emerged as a key area of focus and hold significant potential implications for future clinical practice. Combinatorial approaches of IL-1β inhibitors and ICIs may provide a potential therapeutic modality for NSCLC patients without targetable mutations. Recent advancements in our understanding of the intricate relationship between inflammation and oncogenesis, particularly involving the IL-1β/PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, have shed light on their application in lung cancer development and clinical outcomes of patients. Targeting these pathways in cancers like NSCLC holds immense potential to revolutionize cancer treatment, particularly for patients lacking targetable genetic mutations. However, despite these promising prospects, there remain certain aspects of this pathway that require further investigation, particularly regarding treatment resistance. Therefore, the objective of this review is to delve into the role of IL-1β in NSCLC, its participation in inflammatory pathways, and its intricate crosstalk with the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway. Additionally, we aim to explore the potential of IL-1β as a therapeutic target for NSCLC treatment.

The treatment of urothelial carcinoma (UC) is challenging given its molecular heterogeneity and variable response to current therapies. To address this, many tools, including tumor biomarker assessment and liquid biopsies, have been developed to predict prognosis and treatment response. Approved therapeutic modalities for UC currently include chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and antibody drug conjugates. Ongoing investigations to improve the treatment of UC include the search for actionable alterations and the testing of novel therapies. An important objective in recent studies has been to increase efficacy while decreasing toxicity by taking into account unique patient and tumor-related factors—an endeavor called precision medicine. The aim of this review is to highlight advancements in the treatment of UC, describe ongoing clinical trials, and identify areas for future study in the context of precision medicine.

Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is a hematologic malignancy with unique significance to the field of hematology and oncology, specifically due to the development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). CML often presents with nonspecific symptoms, and the quality of life in patients with CML has drastically improved as a result of TKIs. However, complications of CML including the risk of transforming into life-threatening blast crises continue to exist. Further, as most patients are asymptomatic in the chronic phase, patients often present with serious complications associated with noncompliance to TKIs. For example, central nervous system (CNS) manifestations of CML have been reported, both as the initial presentation of undiagnosed CML and as known complication of uncontrolled CML. Hyperleukocytosis is a manifestation of uncontrolled CML and leukostasis is a complication, occurring in cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Here we present a rare case of leukostasis in a patient with known CML presenting on computed tomography (CT) as intracranial masses in the chronic phase. Our goal is to discuss this rare case of leukostasis in adult CML and describe its management.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) characterized by a hallmark translocation of t (11; 14). CD10 negativity has been used to differentiate MCL from other NHL types; however, recently, there has been an increase in the number of reported cases of CD10-positive MCL. This warrants further investigation into this rarer immunophenotype and its clinical significance. BCL6, which is a master transcription factor for the regulation of cell proliferation and key oncogene in B cell lymphomagenesis, has been reported to have co-expression with CD10 in MCL. The clinical significance of this aberrant antigen expression remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review by searching four databases and selected five retrospective analyses and five case series. Two survival analyses were conducted to determine if BCL6 positivity conferred a survival difference: 1. BCL6+ vs. BCL6− MCL. 2. BCL6+/CD10+ vs. BCL6−/CD10+ MCL. Correlation analysis was conducted to determine if BCL6 positivity correlated with the Ki67 proliferation index (PI). Overall survival (OS) rates were performed by the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. Our analyses revealed that BCL6+ MCL had significantly shorter overall survival (median OS: 14 months vs. 43 months; p = 0.01), BCL6+/CD10+ MCL had an inferior outcome vs. BCL6+/CD10− MCL (median OS: 20 months vs. 55 months p = 0.1828), BCL6+ MCL had significantly higher percentages of Ki67% (Ki67% difference: 24.29; p = 0.0094), and BCL6 positivity had a positive correlation with CD10+ status with an odds ratio 5.11 (2.49, 10.46; p = 0.0000286). Our analysis showed that BCL6 expression is correlated with CD10 positivity in MCL, and BCL6 expression demonstrated an inferior overall survival. The higher Ki67 PI in BCL6+ MCL compared to BCL6− MCL further supports the idea that the BCL6+ immunophenotype may have prognostic value in MCL. MCL management should consider incorporating prognostic scoring systems adjusted for BCL6 expression. Targeted therapies against BCL6 may offer potential therapeutic options for managing MCL with aberrant immunophenotypes.