Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can elicit toxicities by inhibiting negative regulators of adaptive immunity. Sometimes, management of toxicities may require systemic glucocorticoids. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the correlation between steroids use, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) in cancer patients treated with ICIs. Publications that compared steroids with non-steroid users in cancer patients treated with ICIs from inception to June 2019 were identified by searching the EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Patients (studies, n = 16; patients, n = 4045) taking steroids were at increased risk of death and progression compared to those not taking steroids (HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.24–1.91; p = 0.01 and HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.02–1.76; p = 0.03, respectively). The main negative effect on OS was associated with patients taking steroids for supportive care (HR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.41–4.43; p < 0.01) or brain metastases (HR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.22–1.87; p < 0.01). In contrast, steroids used to mitigate adverse events did not negatively affect OS. In conclusion, caution is needed when steroids are used for symptom control. In these patients, a negative impact of steroid use was observed for both OS and PFS.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab plus capecitabine with or without pertuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive metastatic breast cancer who experienced disease progression during or after trastuzumab-based therapy and received a prior taxane. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to arm A: trastuzumab 8 mg/kg → 6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks plus capecitabine 1,250 mg/m² twice a day (2 weeks on, 1 week off, every 3 weeks); or arm B: pertuzumab 840 mg → 420 mg once every 3 weeks plus trastuzumab at the same dose and schedule as arm A plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² on the same schedule as arm A. The primary end point was independent review facility–assessed progression-free survival (IRF PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. Hierarchical testing procedures were used to control type I error for statistical testing of IRF PFS, OS, and objective response rate. Results: Randomly assigned (intent-to-treat) populations were 224 and 228 patients in arms A and B, respectively. Median IRF PFS at 28.6 and 25.3 months’ median follow-up was 9.0 v 11.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P = .0731) and interim OS was 28.1 v 36.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.90). The most common adverse events (all grades; incidence of ≥ 10% in either arm and ≥ 5% difference between arms) were hand-foot syndrome, nausea, and neutropenia in arm A, and diarrhea, rash, and nasopharyngitis in arm B. Conclusion: The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab and capecitabine did not significantly improve IRF PFS. An 8-month increase in median OS to 36.1 months with pertuzumab was observed. Statistical significance for OS cannot be claimed because of the hierarchical testing of OS after the primary PFS end point; however, the magnitude of OS difference is in keeping with prior experience of pertuzumab in metastatic breast cancer. No new safety signals were identified.

(1) Background: The optimal timing of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in gastrointestinal malignancies is still a matter of debate. For colorectal cancer, it is recommended to start post-operative treatment within eight weeks. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effects of starting adjuvant CT within or after 6–8 weeks post-surgery in colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. (2) Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched in December 2018. Publications comparing the outcomes of patients treated with adjuvant CT administered before (early) or after (delayed) 6–8 weeks post-surgery for colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer were identified. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). (3) Results: Out of 8752 publications identified, 34 comparative studies assessing a total of 141,853 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant increased risk of death with delayed CT (>6–8 weeks post-surgery) in colorectal cancer (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–1.33; p <0.001). Similarly, for gastric cancer, delaying adjuvant CT was associated with inferior overall survival (HR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.04–1.38; p = 0.01). Conversely, the benefit of earlier CT was not evident in pancreatic cancer (HR = 1, 95% CI 1–1.01; p = 0.37). Conclusions: Starting adjuvant CT within 6–8 weeks post-surgery is associated with a significant survival benefit for colorectal and gastric cancer, but not for pancreatic cancer.

Purpose: To determine whether second-line therapy with capecitabine and temozolomide was superior to irinotecan, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) in patients with RAS-mutated, methyl-guanine methyltransferase (MGMT)-methylated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods: In this randomized, phase II trial, we enrolled patients with RAS-mutated, MGMT-methylated mCRC after failure of oxaliplatin-based regimen. Patients with centrally confirmed MGMT methylation were stratified by first-line progression-free survival (PFS) and prior bevacizumab and randomized to either capecitabine plus temozolomide (arm A, CAPTEM) or FOLFIRI (arm B). The primary endpoint was PFS analyzed on intention-to-treat basis, with 90% power and one-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect an increase of median time from 2 months in arm B to 4 months in arm A. Results: Between November 2014 and May 2019, 86 patients were randomly assigned to arm A (n = 43) or arm B (n = 43). After a median follow-up of 30.5 months (interquartile range, 12.2–36.3), 79 disease progression or death events occurred. Superiority of arm A was not demonstrated (one-sided P = 0.223). Progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.5 (2.0–5.0) and 9.5 (8.2–25.8) in arm A versus 3.5 (2.3–6.1) and 10.6 (8.5–20.8) in arm B [HR = 1.19 (0.82–1.72) and HR = 0.97 (0.58–1.61)], respectively. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events had higher incidence in arm B versus A (47.6% vs 16.3%), and quality of life was significantly worse in arm B. Patients with positive MGMT expression by IHC did not benefit from CAPTEM. Conclusions: Temozolomide-based therapy warrants further investigation in molecularly hyperselected subgroups.

The gut microbiome has emerged as a critical determinant of immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) efficacy. A narrative review of 95 clinical studies (2015–2025) shows that patients with greater gut microbial diversity and relative enrichment of commensals such as Akkermansia, Ruminococcus, and other short-chain fatty acid producers experience longer progression-free and overall survival, particularly in melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer. Broad-spectrum antibiotics given within 30 days of ICI initiation and over-the-counter mixed probiotics consistently correlate with poorer outcomes. Early phase I/II trials of responder-derived fecal microbiota transplantation in ICI-refractory melanoma achieved objective response rates of 20–40%, while pilot high-fiber or plant-forward dietary interventions improved immunologic surrogates such as CD8⁺ tumor infiltration. Machine-learning classifiers that integrate 16S or metagenomic profiles predict ICI response with an area under the ROC curve of 0.83–0.92. Methodological heterogeneity across sampling, sequencing, and clinical endpoints remains a barrier, underscoring the need for standardization and larger, well-powered trials.

The COVID-19 pandemic has inevitably caused those involved in cancer care to change clinical practice in order to minimize the risk of infection while maintaining cancer treatment as a priority. General advice during the pandemic suggests that most patients continue with ongoing therapies or planned surgeries, while follow-up visits may instead be delayed until the resolution of the outbreak. We conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify articles published in English language that reported on care recommendations for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic from its inception up to 1st June 2020, using the terms “(cancer or tumor) AND (COVID 19)”. Articles were selected for relevance and split into five categories: (1) personal recommendations of single or multiple authors, (2) recommendations of single authoritative centers, (3) recommendations of panels of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, (4) recommendations of multicenter cooperative groups, (5) official guidelines or recommendations of health authorities. Of the 97 included studies, 10 were personal recommendations of single or multiple independent authors, 16 were practice recommendations of single authoritative cancer centers, 35 were recommendations provided by panel of experts or of multiple regional comprehensive centers, 19 were cooperative group position papers, and finally, 17 were official guidelines statements. The COVID-19 pandemic is a global emergency, and has rapidly modified our clinical practice. Delaying unnecessary treatment, minimizing toxicity, and identifying care priorities for surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies must be viewed as basic priorities in the COVID-19 era.