Breast cancer is still a lethal disease and the leading cause of death in women, undermining patients’ survival and quality of life. Modern techniques of surgery and radiotherapy allow for the obtaining of good results in terms of survival, however they cause long-term side effects that persist over time, such as lymphedema and neuropathy. Similarly, the advent of new therapies such as endocrine therapy revolutionized breast cancer outcomes, but side effects are still present even in years of follow-up after cure. Besides the side effects of medical and surgical therapy, breast cancer is a real disruption in patients’ lives considering quality of life-related aspects such as the distortion of body image, the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, and the impact on family dynamics. Therefore, the doctor-patient relationship is central to providing the best support both during treatment and afterwards. The aim of this review is to summarize the consequences of medical and surgical treatment on breast cancer patients and to emphasize the importance of early prevention of side effects to improve patients’ quality of life.

Cholangiocarcinomas and urothelial carcinomas are lethal tumors worldwide and only a minority of patients are eligible for surgery at diagnosis. Moreover, patients are poorly responsive to current therapeutic strategies, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and multimodality treatments. Recently, several advances have been made in precision medicine and these results are modifying the treatment paradigm for patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinomas and urothelial carcinoma. These histotypes exhibit a high rate of multiple fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) genetic alterations and numerous preclinical and clinical studies support FGFR as a highly attractive novel therapeutic target. Moreover, identifying specific genetic alterations may predict the tumor's response to conventional and novel FGFR-targeted drugs. Recent clinical studies showed promising data for FGFR-targeted therapy in reducing tumor volume and led to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of, e.g., pemigatinib, infigratinib, futibatinib, and erdafitinib. Moreover, FGFR inhibitors show promising results in the first-line setting of cholangiocarcinomas and urothelial carcinomas. Pemigatinib (FIGHT-302) and futibatinib (FOENIX-CAA3) are being evaluated in phase III trials that compare these agents to current first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin in FGFR2-rearranged cholangiocarcinoma. However, complexity in targeting the FGFR signaling pathway is observed. Herein, we describe the characteristics of the FDA-approved and other investigational FGFR-targeted therapeutics, evaluate the most recent preclinical and clinical studies focusing on targeting FGFR genomic alterations in the treatment of cholangiocarcinomas and urothelial cancer, and provide insight into factors involved in response and (acquired) resistance to FGFR inhibition.

Immunotherapy has significantly reshaped the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), offering new therapeutic opportunities after decades in which platinum–pemetrexed chemotherapy represented the only systemic option. However, clinical benefit remains markedly heterogeneous, with outcomes strongly influenced by histologic subtype, patient characteristics, and real-world treatment conditions. Evidence from monotherapy trials has been inconsistent, whereas combination approaches—particularly nivolumab plus ipilimumab—have demonstrated improved survival compared with chemotherapy, mainly in non-epithelioid tumors. Nevertheless, real-world data consistently show lower efficacy and higher toxicity than registrational studies, especially among elderly and unselected populations. Recent translational work has highlighted the relevance of the tumor microenvironment and recurrent genomic alterations such as BAP1, NF2, and CDKN2A in shaping immune activity and potentially modulating response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Transcriptomic signatures and circulating biomarkers—including soluble mesothelin-related peptide—have shown prognostic associations but no validated predictive value. Overall, current evidence suggests that sensitivity to immunotherapy in MPM arises from a complex interplay of genomic, immunologic, and clinical factors, and that no biomarker is yet suitable for guiding treatment decisions. Prospective studies integrating molecular and immune profiling will be essential to refine patient selection and advance toward a more rationally personalized use of immunotherapy