Despite recent advancements demonstrating the potential of tumor-agnostic biomarkers to guide effective therapies, randomized evidence supporting the clinical superiority of precision oncology approaches compared to standard therapies remains limited. The ROME trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 2 study comparing tailored treatment (TT) to standard of care (SoC) in patients with advanced solid tumors progressing after one or two lines of therapy. Comprehensive genomic profiling on tissue and blood was performed to identify actionable alterations. Overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TTNT) and safety were the secondary endpoints. Between November 2020 and August 2023, 1,794 patients were screened, 897 were evaluated by the molecular tumor board (MTB) and 400 were randomized to TT or SoC. TT achieved a significantly higher ORR (17.5% versus 10%; P = 0.0294) and improved median PFS (3.5 months versus 2.8 months; hazard ratio = 0.66 (0.53–0.82), P = 0.0002). TT also showed superior 12-month PFS rates (22.0% versus 8.3%). Median OS was similar, with a 52% crossover rate. Grade 3/4 adverse events were also similar (40% TT versus 52% SoC). These results highlight the potential of TT to improve outcomes for patients with diverse actionable genomic alterations. These results also provide relevant evidence supporting a tumor-agnostic precision oncology strategy and highlight the potential of TTs, guided by genomic profiling and MTB recommendations, to significantly improve outcomes for patients with diverse actionable genomic alterations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04591431.

Pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) can predict better survival outcomes in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1), and Cluster of Differentiation 73 (CD73) are immune-related biomarkers that can be evaluated in the tumor microenvironment. We investigated if the contemporary expression of these biomarkers combined in a tissue immune profile (TIP) can predict pCR better than single biomarkers in TNBC. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), CD73 expression by cancer cells (CC), and PD-L1 expression by immune cells (IC) were evaluated on pre-NACT biopsies. We defined TIP positive (TIP+) as the simultaneous presence of TILS ≥ 50%, PD-L1 ≥ 1%, and CD73 ≤ 40%. To consider the effects of all significant variables on the pCR, multivariate analysis was performed. Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used for model selection. We retrospectively analyzed 60 biopsies from patients with TNBC who received standard NACT. Pathological complete response was achieved in 23 patients (38.0%). Twelve (20.0%) cases resulted to be TIP+. The pCR rate was significantly different between TIP+ (91.7%) and TIP− (25.0%) (p < 0.0001). Using a multivariate analysis, TIP was confirmed as an independent predictive factor of pCR (OR 49.7 (6.30–392.4), p < 0.0001). Finally, we compared the efficacy of TIP versus each single biomarker in predicting pCR by AIC and BIC. The combined immune profile is more accurate in predicting pCR (AIC 68.3; BIC 74.5) as compared to single biomarkers. The association between TIP+ and pCR can be proposed as a novel link between immune background and response to chemotherapy in TNBC, highlighting the need to consider an immunological patients’ profile rather than single biomarkers.

The actual role of chemotherapy in vulvar cancer is undeniably a niche topic. The low incidence of the disease limits the feasibility of randomized trials. Decision making is thus oriented by clinical and pathological features, whose relevance is generally weighted against evidence from observational studies and clinical practice. The therapeutic management of vulvar cancer is increasingly codified and refined at an individual patient level. It is of note that the attitude towards evidence sharing and discussion within a multidisciplinary frame is progressively consolidating. Viable options included in the therapeutic armamentarium available for vulvar cancer patients are frequently an adaption from standards used for cervical or anal carcinoma. Chemotherapy is more frequently combined with radiotherapy as neo-/adjuvant or definitive treatment. Drugs commonly used are platinum derivative, 5-fluorouracil and mitomicin C, mostly in combination with radiotherapy for radiosensitization. Exclusive chemotherapy in the neo-/adjuvant setting comprises platinum-derivative, combined with bleomicin and methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, ifosfamide or taxanes. In advanced disease, current regimens include cisplatin-based chemoradiation, with or without 5-fluorouracil, or doublets with platinum in combination with a taxane. Our work is also enriched by a concise excursus on the biologic pathways underlying vulvar cancer. Introductory hints are also provided on targeted agents, a rapidly evolving research field.

Background: BRAF and MEK inhibition is a successful strategy in managing BRAF-mutant melanoma, even if the treatment-related toxicity is substantial. We analyzed the role of drug–drug interactions (DDI) on the toxicity profile of anti-BRAF/anti-MEK therapy. Methods: In this multicenter, observational, and retrospective study, DDIs were assessed using Drug-PIN software (V 2/23). The association between the Drug-PIN continuous score or the Drug-PIN traffic light and the occurrence of treatment-related toxicities and oncological outcomes was evaluated. Results: In total, 177 patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma undergoing BRAF/MEK targeted therapy were included. All grade toxicity was registered in 79% of patients. Cardiovascular toxicities occurred in 31 patients (17.5%). Further, 94 (55.9%) patients had comorbidities requiring specific pharmacological treatments. The median Drug-PIN score significantly increased when the target combination was added to the patient’s home therapy (p-value < 0.0001). Cardiovascular toxicity was significantly associated with the Drug-PIN score (p-value = 0.048). The Drug-PIN traffic light (p = 0.00821) and the Drug-PIN score (p = 0.0291) were seen to be significant predictors of cardiotoxicity. Patients with low-grade vs. high-grade interactions showed a better prognosis regarding overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0045) and progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.012). The survival analysis of the subgroup of patients with cardiological toxicity demonstrated that patients with low-grade vs. high-grade DDIs had better outcomes in terms of OS (p = 0.0012) and a trend toward significance in PFS (p = 0.068). Conclusions: DDIs emerged as a critical issue for the risk of treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity. Our findings support the utility of DDI assessment in melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors.

Abemaciclib demonstrated clinical benefit in women affected by HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer (aBC). Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can lead to reduced treatment efficacy or increased toxicity. This retro-prospective study aimed to evaluate outcomes, DDIs’ impact, and toxicities of abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy in a real-world setting. Patients from 12 referral Italian hospitals with HR+/HER2− aBC who received abemaciclib were included. Clinical data about comorbidities, concurrent medications, outcomes, and adverse events (AE) were collected. Drug-PIN® (Personalized Interactions Network) is a tool recognizing the role of multiple interactions between active and/or pro-drug forms combined with biochemical and demographic patient data. The software was used to define the Drug-PIN score and Drug-PIN tier (green, yellow, dark yellow, and red) for each patient. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of patients’ PFS or toxicity. One hundred seventy-three patients were included. 13% of patients had >75years. The overall response rate (ORR) was 63%. The general population’s median PFS (mPFS) was 22 months (mo), while mOS were not reached. Patients treated with abemaciclib in combination with AI and fulvestrant had a mPFS of 36 and 19 mo, respectively. The most common toxicities were diarrhea, asthenia, and neutropenia detected in 63%,49%, and 49% of patients. The number of concomitant medications and comorbidities were not associated with survival outcomes (22 vs 17 mo, p = 0.068, p = 0.99). Drug-PIN tier from dark yellow to red and Drug-PIN score >12 were associated with shorter PFS compared to no/low-risk DDIs and score <12 (15 vs 23, p = 0.005, p = 0.0017). Drug interaction was confirmed as an independent biomarker in a multivariate model (p = 0.02). No difference in any grade AE, severe toxicities, and diarrhea were detected among different age subgroups. No association was found between Drug-PIN score or Drug-PIN tier and overall toxicity (p = 0.44), severe AEs (p = 0.11), or drug reduction (p = 0.27). The efficacy and safety of abemaciclib plus ET were confirmed in a real-world setting, even in the elderly population and patients with comorbidities. Evaluation of DDIs with Drug-PIN appears to be an independent predictor of PFS.

Purpose: This analysis evaluated the influence of tissue and liquid biopsy concordance on outcomes in patients enrolled in the ROME trial. Patients and Methods: The ROME trial, a phase II multicenter study, enrolled 1,794 patients with advanced solid tumors. Next-generation sequencing was performed on tissue and liquid biopsies using FoundationOne CDx and FoundationOne Liquid CDx. A centralized molecular tumor board reviewed results to identify actionable alterations, with 400 patients randomly assigned to tailored therapy (TT) or standard-of-care groups. TT improved objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Concordance was defined as the detection of the same druggable alteration in both biopsy types; discordance indicated detection in only one. Results: Concordance was present in 49% of cases, with alterations detected exclusively in tissue (35%) or liquid (16%) biopsies. Patients in the concordant group receiving TT experienced improved survival outcomes. The median overall survival was 11.05 versus 7.70 months in the standard-of-care group [HR = 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.51–1.07], and the median PFS was 4.93 versus 2.80 months (HR = 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.40–0.76), respectively. In contrast, the survival benefit of TT was less pronounced or absent in patients with discordant results. Overall survival was higher in the T + L group (11.05 months), followed by tissue-only (9.93 months) and liquid-only (4.05 months) groups. PFS followed a similar pattern, with the longest PFS in the T + L group (4.93 months) versus 3.06 months in tissue-only and 2.07 months in liquid-only groups. Conclusions: The study highlights the potential value of integrating both biopsy modalities in selected clinical contexts. See related commentary by Saldanha and Siu, p. 7