The latest and newest discoveries for advanced and metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer are the three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in association with endocrine therapy (ET). However, even if this treatment revolutionized the world and continued to be the first-line treatment choice for these patients, it also has its limitations, caused by de novo or acquired drug resistance which leads to inevitable progression after some time. Thus, an understanding of the overview of the targeted therapy which represents the gold therapy for this subtype of cancer is essential. The full potential of CDK4/6i is yet to be known, with many trials ongoing to expand their utility to other breast cancer subtypes, such as early breast cancer, and even to other cancers. Our research establishes the important idea that resistance to combined therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) can be due to resistance to endocrine therapy, to treatment with CDK4/6i, or to both. Individuals’ responses to treatment are based mostly on genetic features and molecular markers, as well as the tumor’s hallmarks; therefore, a future perspective is represented by personalized treatment based on the development of new biomarkers, and strategies to overcome drug resistance to combinations of ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors. The aim of our study was to centralize the mechanisms of resistance, and we believe that our work will have utility for everyone in the medical field who wants to deepen their knowledge about ET + CDK4/6 inhibitors resistance.

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is an aggressive cancer characterised by an increased recurrence rate and an inadequate response to treatment. This study aimed to investigate the importance of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a prognostic marker for long-term survival in patients with mRCC. Methods: We retrospectively analysed data from 74 patients with mRCC treated at our medical centre with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We evaluated the predictive value of NLR for overall survival (OS) in these patients. Results: The median OS was 5.1 months in the higher NLR group (≥3) and 13.3 months in the lower NLR group (<3) (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the OS between the TKI and ICI therapies in the low NLR group (12.9 vs. 13.6 months, p = 0.411) or in the high NLR group (4.7 vs. 5.5 months, p = 0.32). Both univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that a higher NLR was an independent prognostic factor of long-term survival in patients with mRCC treated with first-line therapy. Conclusions: This retrospective study showed that adding NLR to other Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) variables might improve the prognostic and predictive power of these models.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are common in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and represent a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality. Risk stratification is paramount in deciding the initiation of thromboprophylaxis and is calculated using scores that include tumor location, laboratory values, patient clinical characteristics, and tumor burden. Commonly used risk scores do not include the presence of molecular aberrations as a variable. This retrospective study aims to confirm the link between KRAS-activating mutations and the development of VTE in CRC. A total of 166 patients were included in this study. They were split into two cohorts based on KRAS mutational status. We evaluated the frequency and mean time to VTE development stratified by the presence of KRAS mutations. Patients with mutant KRAS had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.758 for VTE compared to KRAS wild-type patients, with an increased risk of thrombosis being maintained in KRAS mutant patients even after adjusting for other known VTE risk factors. Taking into account the results of this study, KRAS mutation represents an independent risk factor for VTE.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the most effective treatments nowadays. Nivolumab was the second ICI used for treating solid tumors with amazing results. Patients treated with Nivolumab may react differently to this treatment. Some people tolerate this treatment very well without experiencing any adverse reactions, whilst some may have mild symptoms and a part of them can present severe reactions. In our research, we sought to identify the answers to four questions: 1. what type of cancer has more severe hypersensitivity reactions to Nivolumab, 2. what is the time frame for developing these severe reactions to Nivolumab, 3. whether it is best to continue or stop the treatment after a severe hypersensitivity reaction to Nivolumab and 4. what severe hypersensitivity reactions are the most frequent reported along Nivolumab treatment. This review also highlights another problem with regard to the usage of concomitant and prior medications or other methods of treatment (e.g., radiation therapy), which can also lead to severe reactions. Treatment with Nivolumab is very well tolerated, but patients should also be warned of the possibility of severe hypersensitivity reactions for which they should urgently see a doctor for a personalized evaluation. There are some options for individuals with severe hypersensitivity reactions, for eg. switching the medication or applying a desensitization protocol.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and endocrine therapy are the gold standards for systemic therapy for patients with hormone-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer. Following progression, no prospective randomized data exist to help guide second-line treatment. Moreover, there is a scarcity of data on rechallenge treatment strategies with another CDK4/6 inhibitor after prior limiting toxicity. We report a real-world experience of rechallenging with abemaciclib after the prior reaction of grade 4 liver toxicity to ribociclib, with high transaminases values of more than 27 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) and unexpected grade 3 neutropenia and diarrhea after a few months of abemaciclib. After two years of treatment, the patient had stable oncological disease, with normal complete blood count, hepatic enzymes, and a very good performance status. We believe that our clinical case, along with others gathered from all around the world, will help with the consolidation of an unmet clinical need to readjust the treatment after experiencing toxicity to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Background This study aims to evaluate the prognostic significance of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methodology A retrospective analysis was conducted among 65 patients diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer who received treatment and follow-up at the Oncology Department of Elias Emergency University Hospital in Bucharest, Romania, from January 2016 to January 2024. Patient data were collected, including demographic information, tumor characteristics, and laboratory parameters. The mGPS was calculated based on serum albumin and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. Patients were stratified into the following three mGPS categories: 0 (normal CRP and albumin), 1 (elevated CRP or hypoalbuminemia), and 2 (elevated CRP and hypoalbuminemia). Results Of the 65 patients included, 33 (50.8%) were male and 32 (49.2%) were female, with a mean age of 63.7 years. According to mGPS, 25 (38.5%) patients scored 0, 30 (46.2%) scored 1, and 10 (15.4%) scored 2. The median overall survival (OS) was 53 months (95% confidence interval (CI) = 23.512-82.488), and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 23 months (95% CI = 19.244-26.756). Although numerical differences in the median PFS and OS were observed between treatment groups, these differences were not statistically significant (PFS: p = 0.292; OS: p = 0.5). Conclusions The mGPS is a useful prognostic tool in mCRC, providing insights into patient survival outcomes. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these findings and clarify the role of mGPS in guiding clinical decision-making for mCRC patients.