Background. Metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) is associated with a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 4–15 months. Despite new insights into the genetic and molecular background of MUM, satisfactory systemic treatment approaches are currently lacking. The study results of innovative treatment strategies are urgently needed. Patients and Methods. This was a retrospective case series of 8 patients with MUM managed at the University of Cincinnati between January 2015 and January 2018. The immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST) 1.1 criteria were used for patient evaluation, and magnetic resonance imaging was used for evaluation at treatment checkpoints. Objective. To assess the clinical outcome of patients with MUM treated with a combination of checkpoint inhibitors. Results. The series included eight patients, six men and two women, with MUM. Their median age at MUM diagnosis was 69 (range, 55–77) years. All patients were treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab combination along with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), followed by nivolumab maintenance and monthly TACE procedures. The majority of patients had a partial response or stable disease. Two of the patients had partial response, while four others had stable disease. Two other patients experienced disease progression. Conclusion. We report the outcomes of eight patients with MUM treated with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. We report the clinical outcome and toxicity associated with this treatment approach. Further studies are warranted to explore immunotherapy in MUM. These findings support the consideration of immunotherapy in MUM.

Objectives: To evaluate and categorize the survival benefit of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in lung cancer patients based on systematic computational drug repositioning data. Methods: Data were retrospectively extracted from the medical records of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the University of Cincinnati Cancer Medical Center database. Patients receiving antidepressants during their course of anti-cancer treatment were compared with those without antidepressants. Data were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves with the log-rank test, and overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of diagnosis until last follow-up or death. Results: The median OS at 2 and 5 years for patients on antidepressants was 20.3 months (54.7% and 42%) vs 44.3 months (47.6% and 43.2%), which was not significant. The median OS for patients receiving TCAs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and other antidepressants was 3.17 months, 31.33 months, and 18.50 months, respectively. Conclusion: We found no significant survival benefit for TCA use in combination with anti-cancer agents in NSCLC patients.

Large cell neuroendocrine cancer (LCNEC) of the lung exhibits morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of both neuroendocrine and large cell carcinomas. No defined optimal therapy has been described for this subset of patients and the question of whether these patients should be treated with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment protocols, according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, or with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) due to histological and clinical similarities is still uncertain. We conducted a retrospective review of patients identified with diagnosis of LCNEC of the lung at the University of Cincinnati Cancer Center from the year 2002 to 2012 to determine which treatment approach resulted in improved outcomes in this rare category of disease. Patients who received chemotherapy whether NSCLC (group A) or SCLC (group B) protocols did not show significant changes in OS (P=0.911). Meanwhile, patients who underwent surgery (group C) had better OS compared to groups A and B (P= 0.027 and 0.024, respectively). This analysis reveals that outcomes for SCLC or NSCLC treatment strategies in LCNEC patients did not result in survival advantages and future research should be addressing it as a separate entity.

Metastatic prognosis in uveal melanoma is assessed by gene expression profiling (GEP) testing of the tumor cells, usually obtained by fine needle aspiration (FNA). GEP has demonstrated high accuracy in distinguishing class I and II tumors, both having different metastatic potential. Transcriptomic studies identified distinct mutations including somatic mutations in GNAQ and GNA11, detected in more than 80%, and contribute to the upregulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway and the development of uveal melanoma (UM). The role of these mutations in treatment selection and possible benefit from targeted therapy are somewhat unclear. However, until the discovery of novel agents, local versus systemic therapies remain options for treatment that can still be considered for disease control in certain cases. We report a series of patients with metastatic UM with distinct mutational profiles. One had significant liver metastases with proven GNQ-209P mutation on tissue biopsy while peripheral blood molecular profiling did not show these mutations. The other three cases had no GNQ-209P mutation. All cases received nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) as a treatment drug, and we record their responses to treatment and their molecular-profiling results.

Background: Autophagy is a catabolic process triggered in cells during periods of metabolic or hypoxic stress to enable their survival that may also impart advantages to tumors. Inhibition of early stage autophagy can rescue cancer cells, while inhibition of late stage autophagy leads to cell death due to accumulation of damaged organelles. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) inhibit late phase autophagy. We assessed the safety, tolerability and activity of combining CQ/HCQ with carboplatin and gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: This single institution phase 1 dose-escalation study was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CQ/HCQ, in combination with CG in patients with advanced solid tumors. Secondary objectives were to determine ORR, PFS and OS. A starting dose of CQ/HCQ 50 mg was used in conjunction with CG, and increased in increments of 50 mg in each dose cohort. Grade 3 or greater toxicity that is treatment-related, and was not self-limited, or controlled in less than 7 days was considered dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled. All patients had at least one prior treatment, and 11 of them had 3 prior regimens. HCQ 100 mg daily was found to be the MTD in combination with CG with thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia dose-limiting. Median OS was 11 months, and the 1- and 3- year overall survivals were 30% and 7%, respectively. Median progression free survival was 5 months and the 6-, 12-, and 18-month progression-free survivals were 48%, 21% and 14%, respectively. Conclusions: The MTD identified for CQ/HCQ was lower than previously reported with concomitant use of chemotherapeutic regimes likely due to the myelosuppressive nature.

The incidence of renal cell carcinomas in adults ranges has been increasing over the past decades in both men and women. Once the incidence was 2.9%, now is reported to have increased to 3%–5% with male predominance according to the most recent reports of cancer statistics. The disease typically describes a group of different histopathological subtypes; the most common is clear cell carcinoma which accounts for 70%–80% of the diagnosed cases, while papillary renal cell carcinoma and chromophobe types represent 20% and 5%, respectively. In 1996, the renal cell carcinomas Heidelberg classification was introduced by Delahunt et al. It divides renal cell tumors into benign and malignant parenchymal neoplasms, excluding Wilm’s tumor and secondary metastases and limiting each subcategory to the most commonly documented genetic abnormalities, if applicable. In this report, we discuss a case of metastatic type I papillary renal cell carcinoma treated with the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor sunitinib and showing marked long-term clinical response. Through this case, we highlight the importance of re-classifying papillary renal cell carcinoma subtypes to prioritize the clinical management of these cases.