Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCC) comprise several rare and poorly described diseases, often characterized by bad prognosis and with no standard treatments available. The gap in their clinical management is linked to the poor molecular characterization in handling the treatment of non clear-cell RCC with untailored therapies. Due to their rarity, non-clear RCC are in fact under-represented in prospective randomized trials. Thus, treatment choices are based on extrapolating results from clear cell RCC trials, retrospective data, or case reports. Over the last two decades, various options have been considered as the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC), including angiogenesis inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors, other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), as well as MET inhibitors and mammalian targeting of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. More recently, the therapeutic armamentarium has been enriched with immunotherapy, alone or in combination with targeted agents that have been shown to significantly improve outcomes of mRCC patients, if compared to TKI single-agent. It has been widely proven that non-clear cell RCC is a morphologically and clinically distinct entity from its clear cell counterpart but more knowledge about its biology is certainly needed. Histology-specific collaborative trials are in fact now emerging to investigate different treatments for non-clear cell RCC. This review summarizes pathogenetic mechanisms of non-clear cell RCC, the evolution of treatment paradigms over the last few decades, with a focus on immunotherapy-based trials, and future potential treatment options.

First-line immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy has deeply changed the treatment landscape and prognosis in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients with no targetable alterations. Nonetheless, a percentage of patients progressed on ICI as monotherapy or combinations. Open questions remain on patients’ selection, the identification of biomarkers of primary resistance to immunotherapy and the treatment strategies to overcome secondary resistance to first-line immunotherapy. Local ablative approaches are the main therapeutic strategies in oligoprogressive disease, and their role is emerging in patients treated with immunotherapy. Many therapeutic strategies can be adapted in aNSCLC patients with systemic progression to personalize the treatment approach according to re-characterization of the tumors, previous ICI response, and type of progression. This review’s aim is to highlight and discuss the current and potential therapeutic approaches beyond first-line ICI-based therapy in aNSCLC patients based on the pattern of disease progression (oligoprogression versus systemic progression).

For unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC), different locoregional treatments (LRT) could be proposed to patients, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or transarterial treatments, depending on patient and tumor characteristics and local expertise. These different techniques of LRT have not been compared in a randomized clinical trial; most of the relevant studies are retrospective and not comparative. The aim of this narrative review is to help clinicians in their everyday practice discuss the pros and cons of each LRT, depending on the individual characteristics of their patients.

Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are aggressive malignancies with limited treatment options. The addition of durvalumab or pembrolizumab to cisplatin–gemcitabine improves overall survival (OS), but validated biomarkers of benefit remain limited. Immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) have been proposed as treatment-emergent clinical correlates of immune activation. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed an international cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC treated with first-line cisplatin–gemcitabine plus durvalumab. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS). The principal exposure was the occurrence of any imAE. A post hoc complete-case Cox model was adjusted for age, sex, primary tumor site, prior surgery, ECOG performance status, disease stage, albumin, bilirubin, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR); analyses of individual AEs were exploratory. Exact AE onset dates were not consistently available, precluding a reliable formal time-dependent exposure analysis. Results: A total of 1358 patients were included; all received durvalumab, and 276 (20.3%) developed at least one imAE. In the fully baseline-adjusted model, any imAE remained associated with a lower risk of death (adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57–0.92; p = 0.008) and progression or death (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52–0.77; p < 0.001). In exploratory baseline-adjusted analyses of individual imAEs, other imAEs remained associated with OS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24–0.62; p < 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40–0.77; p < 0.001), while hypothyroidism remained associated with PFS only (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43–0.97; p = 0.034); rash and hyperthyroidism were not independently associated after full baseline adjustment. In AE-focused exploratory models, decreased appetite and hyponatremia were associated with worse outcomes, neutropenia with better outcomes, and ALT elevation with worse PFS. Baseline corticosteroid use was uncommon (n = 21), and all steroid analyses are vulnerable to confounding by indication and exposure-timing bias. Conclusions: Treatment-emergent imAEs may represent potential prognostic markers or clinical correlates of benefit, but they are not validated surrogate endpoints. Prospective studies with precise AE-onset capture are required.