Estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC) is the most common BC subtype. Endocrine therapy (ET) targeting ER signaling still remains the mainstay treatment option for hormone receptor (HR)-positive BC either in the early or in advanced setting, including different strategies, such as the suppression of estrogen production or directly blocking the ER pathway through SERMs—selective estrogen receptor modulators—or SERDs—selective estrogen receptor degraders. Nevertheless, the development of de novo or acquired endocrine resistance still remains challenging for oncologists. The use of novel ET combined with targeted drugs, such as cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, has significantly improved long-term outcome rates, thus changing the therapeutic algorithm for metastatic BC (MBC) and recently the therapeutic strategy in the adjuvant setting for early high-risk BC. Eluding the resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET is currently an unmet medical need, and there is disagreement concerning the best course of action for patients who continue to progress after this combination approach. Genetic changes in the tumor along its growth uncovered by genomic profiling of recurrent and/or metastatic lesions through tumor and/or liquid biopsies may predict the response or resistance to specific agents, suggesting the best therapeutic strategy for each patient by targeting the altered ER-dependent pathway (novel oral SERDs and a new generation of anti-estrogen agents) or alternative ER-independent signaling pathways such as PI3K/AKT/mTOR or tyrosine kinase receptors (HER2 mutations or HER2 low status) or by inhibiting pathways weakened through germline BRCA1/2 mutations. These agents are being investigated as single molecules and in combination with other target therapies, offering promising weapons to overcome or avoid treatment failure and propose increasingly more personalized treatment approaches. This review presents novel insights into ET and other targeted therapies for managing metastatic HR⁺/HER2⁻ BC by exploring potential strategies based on clinical evidence and genomic profiling following the failure of the CDK4/6i and ET combination.

Background KRAS is the most frequently mutated gene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however conflicting data are available on its role as a biomarker. Objective The aim of our work was to investigate the impact of KRAS mutations on response and survival outcomes in advanced non-squamous NSCLC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Patients and Methods We retrospectively identified 119 patients, most of whom (58%) were KRAS wild type. For each patient we evaluated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). An exploratory analysis was performed among KRAS mutated patients to investigate the impact of specific KRAS mutations on response and survival outcomes. Results After a median follow-up of 10.3 months, the median OS was 14.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.6–22.7) in wild-type KRAS patients versus 14.7 months (95% CI 8.0–19.5) in mutated KRAS patients (p = 0.529). No differences were detected between the two groups in terms of PFS and DCR. Patients with a KRAS G12C mutation reported survival and response outcomes that were not statistically different from those of patients with other KRAS mutations. Conclusion Our data confirmed that KRAS mutational status is not associated with survival and response outcomes in advanced non-squamous NSCLC patients treated with immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy.

Introduction: In recent years, several inflammation-related factors and nutritional parameters have been evaluated to develop prognostic scores as potential biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The aim of this study was to retrospectively investigate the prognostic role of the advanced lung cancer inflammation (ALI) index, lung immune prognostic index (LIPI), prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and systemic inflammation score (SIS) in metastatic NSCLC patients receiving ICI alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Methods and patients: We retrospectively included 191 patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line ICI with or without chemotherapy from 2017 to 2024. The association between pretreatment ALI, LIPI, PNI, and SIS and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression models. Results: After a median follow-up of 27.7 months, significantly longer OS was associated with an ALI score > 18 vs. ≤18 (18.0 vs. 7.3 months; p = 0.00111), LIPI score 0 vs. 1 and 2 [18.9 vs. 8.2 and 4.2 months; (p = 0.001)], PNI ≥ 45 vs. <45 (22.7 vs. 9.6 months; p = 0.002), and SIS score 0 vs. 1 and 2 (27.4 vs. 7.1 and 8.6 months, respectively; p < 0.001). The OS benefit was independent of treatment (ICI vs. ICI + chemotherapy). At multivariate analysis, pretreatment albumin was positively associated with OS, while ECOG PS 1 and liver metastases were negatively associated with OS. Conclusions: Inflammatory and nutritional biomarkers such as the ALI, LIPI, PNI, and SIS represent useful tools to prognosticate survival in metastatic lung cancer patients treated with ICI alone or in combination with chemotherapy as first-line.

The treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was dramatically revolutionized by the introduction of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in clinical practice, both in advanced and locally advanced/early stages. The present work focuses on osimertinib use in locally advanced and early NSCLC stages. Phase 3 clinical trials have supported the use of osimertinib as the new standard of care, both in the adjuvant setting and in locally advanced disease. The ADAURA study reported an overall survival (OS) advantage for adjuvant osimertinib in completely resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutant tumors, while the LAURA study proved a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) and a delay of central nervous system metastasis development in EGFR-mutant patients treated with osimertinib maintenance after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced disease. In the neoadjuvant setting, data on osimertinib’s efficacy are conflicting; therefore, the Neo-ADAURA study is evaluating the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant osimertinib alone or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with stage II-IIIB NSCLC and common EGFR mutations. We discuss several issues that need to be clarified, such as the efficacy of the drug on uncommon mutations, the long-term impact on survival, and the management of resistance mechanisms. Moreover, we report the studies that are trying to identify potential biomarkers of response, such as the circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), with the aim of selecting patients who will benefit most from osimertinib.

Background: Chemoimmunotherapy combinations represent the standard first-line treatment for non-oncogene addicted metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). However, evidence in elderly patients remains limited and conflicting. We conducted an analysis of the efficacy and safety of chemoimmunotherapy in patients aged ≥75 years enrolled in the Real-Combo Lung study, an observational study including patients with non-oncogene-addicted mNSCLC and PD-L1 expression < 50%. Patients and Methods: The primary objective of the study was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between patients aged ≥75 (elderly cohort) and those aged <75 years (non-elderly cohort). Safety outcomes were evaluated as a secondary objective. Results: A total of 495 patients were enrolled, with 89 (18%) aged ≥75 and 406 (82%) aged <75 years. No significant differences in PFS and OS were observed between the two cohorts. The median PFS was 13.3 months (95% CI: 9.3–NR) in the elderly cohort and 10.5 months (95% CI: 9.5–12.9) in the non-elderly cohort (unadjusted HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.61–1.16, p = 0.29). The median OS was 17.5 months (95% CI: 14.7–NR) versus 21.4 months (95% CI: 17–NR), respectively (unadjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.76–1.56, p = 0.63). In multivariable analysis, ECOG PS ≥ 2 and baseline use of steroids were significantly associated with a worse outcome in the elderly cohort for both PFS and OS. Safety data did not differ significantly between cohorts. Conclusions: In this real-world study, elderly patients with mNSCLC derived outcomes comparable to those of younger patients, with similar efficacy and a manageable safety profile when treated with chemoimmunotherapy combinations.