PURPOSE: This is a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of an immune-sensitizing strategy with temozolomide priming followed by a combination of low-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with microsatellite-stable (MSS) and O⁶-methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase (MGMT)–silenced metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pretreated mCRC were centrally prescreened for MSS status and MGMT silencing (ie, lack of MGMT expression by immunohistochemistry plus MGMT methylation by pyrosequencing). Eligible patients received two priming cycles of oral temozolomide 150 mg/sqm once daily, days 1-5, once every 4 weeks (first treatment part) followed, in absence of progression, by its combination with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 8 weeks and nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (second treatment part). The primary end point was the 8-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate calculated from enrollment in patients who started the second treatment part, with ≥ 4 out of 27 subjects progression-free by the 8-month time point as decision rule. RESULTS: Among 716 prescreened patients, 204 (29%) were molecularly eligible and 135 started the first treatment part. Among these, 102 (76%) were discontinued because of death or disease progression on temozolomide priming, whereas 33 patients (24%) who achieved disease control started the second treatment part and represented the final study population. After a median follow-up of 23.1 months (interquartile range, 14.9-24.6 months), 8-month PFS rate was 36%. Median PFS and overall survival were 7.0 and 18.4 months, respectively, and overall response rate was 45%. Grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were skin rash (6%), colitis (3%), and hypophysitis (3%). No unexpected adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: The MAYA study provided proof-of-concept that a sequence of temozolomide priming followed by a combination of low-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab may induce durable clinical benefit in MSS and MGMT-silenced mCRC.

Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) and the combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) are valid first-line options for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, no randomized trials comparing the two schemes have been performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX in terms of safety and effectiveness, taking into account data from real-life studies on mPC. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library up to November 2018 to identify retrospective or cohort studies on mPC comparing GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX. We included 16 retrospective studies, including 3813 patients (2123 treated with GEM-NAB and 1690 treated with FOLFIRINOX). Despite a median weighted overall survival (OS) difference in favor of FOLFIRINOX (mean difference: 1.15, 95% confidence interval CI 0.08–2.22, p = 0.03), in whole population OS was similar (hazard ratio (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.84–1.16; p = 0.9). PFS was also not different between the two arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71–1.1; p = 0.26). The overall response rate was similar (25 vs. 24% with GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX). Among grade 3–4 toxicities, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were lower with GEM-NAB, while neurotoxicity and anemia were lower with FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, despite a numerically longer median OS with FOLFIRINOX as compared to GEM-NAB, the overall risk of death and progression were similar. Their toxicity was different with less nausea, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia with GEM-NAB, as compared to less neurotoxicity and anemia with FOLFIRINOX. Therefore, analysis of non-randomized “real world” studies to date has not provided evidence of a major benefit of one regimen over the other.

Gastric cancer treatments are rapidly evolving, leading to significant survival benefit. Recent evidence provided by clinical trials strongly encouraged the use of perioperative chemotherapy as standard treatment for the localized disease, whereas in the advanced disease setting, molecular characterization has improved patients’ selection for tailored therapeutic approaches, including molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The role of nutritional therapy is widely recognized, with oncologic treatment’s tolerance and response being better in well-nourished patients. In this review, literature data on strategies or nutritional interventions will be critically examined, with particular regard to different treatment phases (perioperative, metastatic, and palliative settings), with the aim to draw practical indications for an adequate nutritional support of gastric cancer patients and provide an insight on future directions in nutritional strategies. We extensively analyzed the last 10 years of literature, in order to provide evidence that may fit current clinical practice both in terms of nutritional interventions and oncological treatment. Overall, 137 works were selected: 34 Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), 12 meta-analysis, 9 reviews, and the most relevant prospective, retrospective and cross-sectional studies in this setting. Eleven ongoing trials have been selected from clinicaltrial.gov as representative of current research. One limitation of our work lies in the heterogeneity of the described studies, in terms of sample size, study procedures, and both nutritional and clinical outcomes. Indeed, to date, there are no specific evidence-based guidelines in this fields, therefore we proposed a clinical algorithm with the aim to indicate an appropriate nutritional strategy for gastric cancer patients.