Background: The introduction of immunotherapy has significantly improved survival outcomes in many solid tumors. However, a subset of patients exhibits limited responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Emerging evidence indicates that the gut microbiota plays a critical role in modulating the effectiveness of immunotherapy. Consequently, the concurrent use of certain medications that disrupt microbial diversity may contribute to reduced treatment efficacy. Among the agents implicated in altering the gut microbiota are antibiotics and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. Eligible studies assessed the association between PPI use and progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) in patients with solid tumors receiving ICIs. They reported hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The analysis focused on studies published between November 2022 and January 2025, in continuity with prior comprehensive meta-analyses that included studies up to November 2022. This contiguity-based approach enabled a focused evaluation of recent evidence, minimizing redundancy while allowing for the detection of evolving trends in clinical practice and methodology. Data were synthesized using both fixed-effects and random-effects models and visualized via Forest plots. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated using I² statistics and funnel plots. Results: From a pool of over 400 screened articles between November 2022 and January 2025, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The PFS analysis incorporated data from 1367 participants, while the OS analysis included 10,420 individuals. Use of PPIs was linked to a 12% higher risk of disease progression (HR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.90–1.34) and an 18% increased mortality risk (HR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.11–1.25). Conclusions: The observed association between PPIs exposure and reduced efficacy of ICIs, as reflected in worsened PFS and OS outcomes, highlights a potential clinical concern that merits further investigation in prospective studies.

Background: Fusobacterium nucleatum is a pathobiont that plays a dual role as both a commensal and a pathogen. The oral cavity typically harbors this anaerobic, Gram-negative bacterium. At the same time, it is closely linked to colorectal cancer due to its potential involvement in tumor progression and resistance to chemotherapy. The mechanism by which it transforms from a commensal to a pathogen remains unknown. For this reason, we investigated the role of oxidative status as an initiatory factor in changing the bacterium’s pathogenicity profile. Methods: A clinical strain of F. nucleatum subsp. animalis biofilm was exposed to different oxidative stress levels through varying subinhibitory amounts of H₂O₂. Subsequently, we investigated the bacterium’s behavior in vitro by infecting the HT-29 cell line. We evaluated bacterial colonization, volatile sulfur compounds production, and the infected cell’s oxidative status by analyzing HMOX1, pri-miRNA 155, and 146a gene expression. Results: The bacterial colonization rate, dimethyl sulfide production, and pri-miRNA 155 levels all increased when stressed bacteria were used, suggesting a predominant pathogenic function of these strains. Conclusions: The response of F. nucleatum to different oxidative conditions could potentially explain the increase in its pathogenic traits and the existence of environmental factors that may trigger the bacterium’s pathogenicity and virulence.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with metastatic disease posing significant therapeutic challenges. While anti-EGFR therapy has improved outcomes for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors, resistance remains a major hurdle, limiting treatment efficacy. The concept of negative hyperselection has emerged as a refinement of molecular profiling, identifying additional genomic alterations—such as HER2 and MET amplificationsand MAP2K1 mutations—that predict resistance to anti-EGFR agents. Studies incorporating these expanded assessments have demonstrated that nearly half of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors harbor alternative resistance biomarkers, underscoring the need for expanded selection criteria. Liquid biopsies, particularly circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis, have revolutionized precision oncology by providing a minimally invasive, real-time assessment of tumor dynamics. ctDNA-based hyperselection enables the detection of resistance-associated alterations, guiding treatment decisions with greater accuracy than conventional tissue biopsies. Recent trials support the predictive value of ctDNA-defined negative hyperselection, revealing superior outcomes for patients stratified through liquid biopsy. This narrative review explores the evolving role of molecular hyperselection in first-line anti-EGFR therapy, emphasizing the integration of ctDNA to refine patient selection, enhance therapeutic efficacy, and pave the way for personalized treatment strategies in metastatic CRC.

Background: The use of complementary integrative medicine (CIM) by cancer patients is currently very common. The main reasons why patients turn to CIM are to improve quality of life (QoL) and support the immune system. Unfortunately, many patients rely on CIM self-prescription, neglecting the risk of interactions with anticancer treatments (ACTs). The primary objective is to demonstrate the feasibility of combining CIM and ACT in a multidisciplinary approach to improve the QoL of cancer patients and to reduce ACT’s adverse events. Methods: Cancer patients were treated with CIM by expert physicians. CIM mainly consisted of vitamins C and D, the medicinal mushrooms blend U-CARE, and probiotics administered alone or in combination. The patients were followed-up by physicians and data were recorded in a detailed shared file. Results: A total of 54 cancer patients were treated with an integrative approach, especially during ACTs. The combination showed a good safety profile. No adverse events occurred in 92.6% of patients, whereas only 7.4% of patients experienced gastrointestinal or liver toxicity from the CIM approach. The main benefit of the CIM approach was improved fatigue and QoL, and this was mainly achieved by the concomitant use of polytherapy-based complementary medicine (PCM) and U-CARE. The toxicity improvement was mainly associated with the use of solely U-CARE. Conclusions: These results highlight the feasibility of the CIM approach in cancer patients addressed by a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field. The patient-centered and evidence-based approach of CIM is an example of the comprehensive and coordinated strategy pursued by the EU in its programmatic document against cancer aiming to focus on the QoL of patients and to avoid potentially harmful CIM self-prescription.

Background: Olaparib and niraparib are poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) used primarily for the treatment of ovarian cancer. While both drugs have demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials, their safety profiles, particularly in real-world clinical settings, remain to be fully elucidated. Objectives: This study aimed to (i) characterize the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with olaparib and niraparib as reported in the EudraVigilance database, (ii) compare the frequency of the ADRs occurring during treatment with the two drugs, and (iii) compare post-marketing safety data with those from clinical trials. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using data from the EudraVigilance database (2017–2024), focusing on individual case safety reports (ICSRs) related to olaparib and niraparib. Descriptive statistics and disproportionality analysis were performed to compare the frequency and severity of reported ADRs. Results: Both olaparib and niraparib had common ADRs including nausea, vomiting, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue. However, olaparib was associated with a higher risk of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and interstitial lung disease, while niraparib had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal events and thrombocytopenia. Our analysis demonstrates that some specific ADRs, including peripheral neuropathy with niraparib, were reported at higher frequencies compared to clinical trials. The incidence of serious ADRs, including hospitalizations and life-threatening events, was higher with niraparib than with olaparib. Conclusions: This study highlights significant differences in the safety profiles of olaparib and niraparib, with implications for clinical decision-making. Continuous monitoring and personalized management of ADRs are essential to optimize patient outcomes.

Over the past decade, there has been a notable increase in the utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer care, transforming the therapeutic landscape for several types of solid tumors. This development has not only expanded the indications for treatment but has also significantly influenced management strategies and prognostic outcomes for specific subsets of cancer patients. In contrast to the general population of cancer patients, individuals diagnosed with both HIV and cancer encounter significant differences in treatment approaches and outcomes. Consequently, this population demonstrates a significantly increased rate of specific mortality for several common types of cancer. Recent studies have reported significant insights into the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors among this patient group. However, the data remain insufficient, and there are still recognized barriers and limitations regarding the use of these agents in cancer patients. Real-world data and reports from clinical practice offer critical perspectives, enabling the sharing of clinical experiences and assisting in navigating complex management decisions. This report outlines two cases of patients with concurrent HIV and cancer who were administered ICIs in diverse clinical settings, highlighting the necessity of cooperation between oncologists and HIV specialists to provide patients with cutting-edge and increasingly tailored treatment options.