Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with programmed cell death protein-1(PD-1)/programmed death ligand -1(PD-L1) antibodies has revolutionized the management of several cancers, especially non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, urothelial, and renal cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most aggressive cancers associated with high morbidity and mortality. Based on available data, it’s obvious that ICB has limited success in PDACs, which can be explained by the low immunogenicity and immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment of these tumors. In this review article, we focus on PD-L1 expression and microsatellite instability (MSI) in PDAC, and their roles as prognostic and predictive markers. We also discuss data supporting combination therapies to augment cancer immunity cycle. Combining anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents with other modalities such as vaccines, chemotherapy, and radiation could potentially overcome resistance patterns and increase immune responsiveness in PDAC.

Most patients newly diagnosed with melanoma have early-stage disease considered of good prognosis. However, with a risk of recurrence, appropriate follow-up may include surveillance imaging for ear...

Introduction: Immunotherapy has revolutionized metastatic Melanoma therapy. The most active regimen is combination therapy of Ipilimumab-Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) with response rates (RR) of ~60% and median overall survival (OS) of ~6 years. Immune-related adverse events (irAE) are common (~60% develop grade 3-4) and pose a challenge when treating frail patients. We sought to examine whether Ipi-Nivo therapy is feasible in elderly metastatic melanoma patients.Methods: Electronic records of patients treated at the Ella Lemelbaum Institute with Ipi-Nivo between the years 2017-2021 were screened for age. Elderly patients were defined as age 75 and older (group A) and were matched with records of patients age 75 (median 77) were identified and were matched to 34 younger patients (median age 57). No statistically significant differences were noted in terms of baseline parameters except for BRAF mutation status (group A 15%, group B 47%, p=0.008). Response rate in group A was 38% and is consistent with previously published data. Median PFS was the same for both groups (A = 5.5 months, B= 7.5 months, p=NS). Treatment was similarly tolerated: 35% of group A patients completed 4 cycles of therapy compared to 28% for group B (p=NS). Grade 2-4 irAE were the same (A=58%, B=66%, p=NS) and there was no difference in the need for hospitalization for G3-4 events between the groups. (A=63%, B=69%, p=NS). Further division into 4 age groups (>80 vs 75-79 in group A and 65-74 vs <65 in group B) found no difference in terms of response rate or G3-4 toxicity.Conclusion: Ipilimumab-Nivolumab combination therapy in elderly metastatic Melanoma patients seems to be well tolerated and efficient in selected elderly patients based on performance status and comorbidities, just as in younger patients. This regimen seems to be a feasible treatment option for this age group.

Background/Objectives: Robotic-assisted surgery is an attractive and promising option with unique advantages in rectal cancer surgery, but the optimal surgical approach is still debatable. Therefore, we aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the robotic-assisted approach with the laparoscopic-assisted and open approaches. Methods: A single referral center in Israel retrospectively reviewed all patients that underwent an elective rectal resection for primary non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2010 and 2020. The cohort was separated into three groups according to the surgical approach: robotic, laparoscopic, or open. Results: The cohort included 526 patients with a median age of 64 years (range 31–89), of whom 103 patients were in the robotic group, 144 in the open group, and 279 patients in the laparoscopic group. The robotic group had significantly more lower rectal tumors (24.3% versus 12.7% and 6%, respectively, p < 0.001), more locally advanced tumors (65.6% versus 51.2% and 50.2%, respectively, p = 0.004), and higher rates of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (70.9% versus 54.2% and 39.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). Conversion to an open laparotomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (23.1% versus 6.8%, respectively, p = 0.001). The open approach had higher rates of intraoperative complications (23.2% compared with 10.7% and 13.5% in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively, p = 0.011), longer hospital stays (10 days compared with 7 and 8 days, respectively, p < 0.001), and higher rates of postoperative complications (76% compared with 68.9% and 59.1%, respectively, p = 0.002). The groups were similar in the number of harvested lymph nodes (14) and the incidence of positive resection margins (2.1%). The 5-year overall survival in the robotic group was 92.3% compared with 90.5% and 88.3% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = 0.12). The 5-year disease-free survival in the robotic group was 68% compared with 71% and 63%, respectively (p = 0.2). Conclusions: The robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches had similar histopathological outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes. The open approach was associated with higher rates of perioperative morbidity. These findings suggest that the robotic approach is safe and effective in rectal cancer surgery.