The interplay between the immune system and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is complex and multifaceted. In COPD, chronic inflammation and oxidative stress can lead to immune dysfunction that can exacerbate lung damage, further worsening the respiratory symptoms. In NSCLC, immune cells can recognise and attack the cancer cells, which, however, can evade or suppress the immune response by various mechanisms, such as expressing immune checkpoint proteins or secreting immunosuppressive cytokines, thus creating an immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment that promotes cancer progression and metastasis. The interaction between COPD and NSCLC further complicates the immune response. In patients with both diseases, COPD can impair the immune response against cancer cells by reducing or suppressing the activity of immune cells, or altering their cytokine profile. Moreover, anti-cancer treatments can also affect the immune system and worsen COPD symptoms by causing lung inflammation and fibrosis. Immunotherapy itself can also cause immune-related adverse events that could worsen the respiratory symptoms in patients with COPD-compromised lungs. In the present review, we tried to understand the interplay between the two pathologies and how the efficacy of immunotherapy in NSCLC patients with COPD is affected in these patients.

Background: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice. Materials and Methods: In 2012–2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes. Results: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies. Conclusions: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

Differentiating between benign and malignant biliary stenosis (BS) is challenging, where tissue diagnosis plays a crucial role. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue sampling and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) are used to obtain tissue specimens from BS. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA/B plus ERCP with brushing or forceps biopsy in BS. All endoscopic procedures performed in patients with BS at our gastroenterology unit were reviewed. The gold standard for diagnosis was histopathology of surgical specimens or the progression of the malignancy at radiological or clinical follow-up. A total of 70 endoscopic procedures were performed in 51 patients with BS. Final endoscopic diagnosis was reached in 96% of the patients and was malignant in 61.7% and benign in 38.3% of cases. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 73.9%, 100%, and 80%, respectively, for EUS-FNA/B; 66.7%, 100%, and 82.5% for ERCP; and 83.3%, 100%, and 87.5% for both procedures carried out in the same session. The combination of EUS and ERCP tissue sampling seems to increase diagnostic accuracy in defining the etiology of BS. Performing both procedures in a single session reduces the time required for diagnostic work-up and optimizes resources.

Background: KRAS^G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has recently been recognized as a distinct druggable molecular entity; however, there are limited data on its sensitivity to standard chemotherapy. In the near future, the combination of chemotherapy plus a KRAS^G12C-inhibitor might become the standard of care; however, the optimal chemotherapy backbone is unknown. Methods: A multicentre retrospective analysis was conducted including KRAS^G12C-mutated mCRC patients treated with first-line FOLFIRI or FOLFOX +/− bevacizumab. Both unmatched and propensity-score-matched analysis (PSMA) were conducted, with PSMA controlling for: previous adjuvant chemotherapy, ECOG PS, use of bevacizumab in first line, timing of metastasis appearance, time from diagnosis to first-line start, number of metastatic sites, presence of mucinous component, gender, and age. Subgroup analyses were also performed to investigate subgroup treatment–effect interactions. KRAS^G12D-mutated patients were analysed as control. Results: One hundred and four patients treated with irinotecan-(N = 47) or oxaliplatin-based (N = 57) chemotherapy were included. In the unmatched population, objective response rate (ORR) and median (m) progression-free and overall survival (mPFS and mOS) were comparable between the treatment arms. However, a late (>12 months) PFS advantage was observed with irinotecan (HR 0.62, p = 0.02). In the PSMA-derived cohort, a significant improvement with irinotecan vs. oxaliplatin was observed for both PFS and OS: 12- and 24-month PFS rates of 55% vs. 31% and 40% vs. 0% (HR 0.40, p = 0.01) and mOS 37.9 vs. 21.7 months (HR 0.45, p = 0.045), respectively. According to the subgroup analysis, interaction effects between the presence of lung metastases and treatment groups were found in terms of PFS (p for interaction = 0.08) and OS (p for interaction = 0.03), with a higher benefit from irinotecan in patients without lung metastases. No difference between treatment groups was observed in the KRAS^G12D-mutated cohort (N = 153). Conclusions: First-line irinotecan-based regimens provided better survival results in KRAS^G12C-mutated mCRC patients and should be preferred over oxaliplatin. These findings should also be considered when investigating chemotherapy plus targeted agent combinations.

Background: There is ongoing discussion around the optimal course of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) following the second line. Trifluridine/tipiracil (T) and regorafenib (R) have been the mainstay of therapy in this situation, as they both increased overall survival (OS) in comparison to a placebo. Despite the paucity of evidence, therapy rechallenge is also recognized as an option for practical use. In the third-line scenario of mCRC, we planned to investigate the survival outcomes using (T) and (R), both with and without prior rechallenge treatment. Materials and methods: Between 2012 and 2023, we examined the medical records of 1156 patients with refractory mCRC who were enrolled in the multicenter retrospective ReTrITA study. We then separated the patients into two cohorts based on the rechallenge therapy that was given before regorafenib and/or trifluridine/tipiracil at 17 Italian centres. Results: A total of 981 patients underwent T and/or R therapy, while 175 patients had therapy rechallenge before T and/or R. The median overall survival (mOS) for patients treated with T/R and R/T sequences in the rechallenge therapy cohort was 14.5 months and 17.6 months, respectively (p = 0.1955). A statistically significant survival benefit was observed in patients who received monotheraphy with R (mOS: 6 months) compared to the T group (mOS: 4.2 months) (p = 0.0332). In the same cohort, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) benefit was demonstrated in favour of the R/T group (11.3 months) vs. 9 months of the reverse sequence (p = 0.4004). In the no-rechallenge cohort, the mOS was statistically longer in the R/T sequence than in the T/R sequence (16.2 months vs. 12.3 months, respectively; p = 0.0014). In terms of the mPFS, we saw the same significant result for the adoption of R/T treatment (11.5 months vs. 8.4 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). The two monotherapy groups did not reveal any significant differences. Conclusions: This study suggests that rechallenge therapy may improve survival rates in the third-line treatment of mCRC, particularly if it is administered before sequential R/T treatment. This could allow for the extension of mCRC treatment choices until prospective studies are finished or randomised trials are performed.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve overall survival (OS) in advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (a/mUC) patients. Preliminary evidence suggests a prognostic role of inflammatory biomarkers in this setting. We aimed to develop a disease-specific prognostic inflammatory index for a/mUC patients on ICIs. Methods: Fifteen variables were retrospectively correlated with OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in a development (D, n = 264) and a validation (V, n = 132) cohort of platinum-pretreated a/mUC pts receiving ICIs at L2 or further line. A nomogram and inflammatory prognostic index (U-IPI) were developed. The index was also tested in a control cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy only (C, n = 114). Results: The strongest predictors of OS were baseline platelet/lymphocyte (PLR) and neutrophil/lymphocyte (NLR) ratios, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), NLR, and albumin changes at 4 weeks. These were used to build the U-IPI, which can distinctly classify patients into good or poor response groups. The nomogram scoring is significant for PFS and OS (p < 0.001 in the D, V, and combined cohorts) for the immunotherapy (IO) cohort, but not for the control cohort. Conclusions: The lack of a baseline systemic inflammatory profile and the absence of early serum inflammatory biomarker changes are associated with significantly better outcomes on ICIs in a/mUC pts. The U-IPI is an easily applicable dynamic prognostic tool for PFS and OS, allowing for the early identification of a sub-group with dismal outcomes that would not benefit from ICIs, while distinguishing another that draws an important benefit.