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.

The observational multicenter prospective FLOWER study (NCT04965701) confirmed effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the real-world (RW) management of untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. Herein, we report updated survival data, post-progression management, cost/effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of osimertinib compared with a RW population receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. Overall, 189 Caucasian patients receiving first-line osimertinib were included. After a follow-up of 20.7 months, 74(39.2%) patients discontinued osimertinib, median time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 27.9 months, overall survival 36.8 months. At progression, tissue biopsy was performed in 29 (56.9%), liquid biopsy in 15 (29.4%) and both in 7 (13.7%) cases. The most frequent resistant mechanism was MET amplification (N = 14, 29.8%). At data cutoff, 13 (6.9%) patients were continuing osimertinib beyond progression; 52 (67.5%) received second-line treatment; no further treatments were administered in 25 (32.5%) cases. Thirty-three (63.4%) patients received chemotherapy, 12(23.1%) TKIs combination. Cost–effectiveness analysis showed a total cost per patient based on RW mTTD of 98,957.34€, 21,726.28€ and 19,637.83€ for osimertinib, erlotinib and gefitinib, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/month for osimertinib was 359,806.0€/life-year-gained (LYG) and 197,789.77€/LYG compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. For osimertinib, the BI-gap between RW-TTD and theoretical-TTD was 16,501.0€ per patient. This updated analysis confirms the effectiveness of osimertinib in RW. Although the ICER of osimertinib seems not cost-effective, additional costs for the management of disease progression to old generation TKIs were not considered in this study. The BI-gap suggests RW mTTD as a more reliable measure for expense estimation.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) constitute a challenge in the clinical management of solid tumors. This study aims to collect real-world data on the occurrence of immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis (IMDC) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and to assess the clinical impact of a multidisciplinary approach (MDA) on IMDC management. We retrospectively collected data on patients with aNSCLC consecutively treated with ICIs, either as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy, between September 2013 and July 2022. Among patients developing IMDC, we conducted blinded revision of colonic biopsies and evaluated the clinical impact of the introduction of MDA through predefined indicators. Among the 607 patients included, 84 (13.8%) experienced IMDC. Pathological review highlighted a high prevalence of microscopic colitis (28%), with a collagenous pattern linked to longer symptoms duration (P = .01). IMDC occurred more frequently in females (P = .05) and PD-L1 expressors (P = .014) and was correlated with longer progression-free survival (17.0 vs 5.8, P < .001) and overall survival (28.3 vs 9.5, P < .001). The introduction of MDA was associated with increased employment of diagnostical tools such as fecal calprotectin test (P < .001), colonoscopy (P < .001), and gastroenterological evaluation (P = .017) and a significant decrease in both grade 3 conversion rate (P = .046) and recurrence after rechallenge (P = .016). Hospitalization rate dropped from 17.2% to 3.8% (P: ns). These findings highlight the clinical relevance of IMDC and support the incorporation of a MDA to optimize the clinical management of this irAE to improve patient care. Prospective validation has been planned.

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.