Diarrhoea is one of the most burdensome and common adverse events of chemotherapeutics, and has no standardised therapy to date. Increasing evidence suggests that the gut microbiome can influence the development of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea. Here we report findings from a randomised clinical trial of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat diarrhoea induced by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04040712). The primary outcome is the resolution of diarrhoea four weeks after the end of treatments. Twenty patients are randomised to receive FMT from healthy donors or placebo FMT (vehicle only). Donor FMT is more effective than placebo FMT in treating TKI-induced diarrhoea, and a successful engraftment is observed in subjects receiving donor faeces. No serious adverse events are observed in both treatment arms. The trial meets pre-specified endpoints. Our findings suggest that the therapeutic manipulation of gut microbiota may become a promising treatment option to manage TKI-dependent diarrhoea.

Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours. Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure. In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96). Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes. Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival.

Background No standard treatment has been defined for metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). Although clinical trials testing Nivolumab/Pembrolizumab for cutaneous melanoma did not include mUM, anti PD-1 agents are commonly used for this disease. Patients and methods In this prospective observational cohort single arm study, we investigated efficacy and safety of Pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for mUM. The efficacy was evaluated in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), response rate and overall survival (OS). Toxicity was also assessed. Results Seventeen patients were enrolled. A median of 8 cycles were administered (range 2–28). Two patients achieved partial response (11.7%), 6 a disease stabilization (35.3%), whereas 9 (53%) had a progression. No complete response was observed. PFS of the overall population was 3.8 months. PFS was 9.7 months for patients with an interval higher than 5 years from diagnosis of primary tumor to metastatic disease and 2.6 months for patients with an interval lower than 5 years [p = 0.039, HR 0.2865 (95% CI 0.0869–0.9443)]. Median OS was not reached. The two responding patients were still on treatment with Pembrolizumab at the time of data analysis. Survival was 12.8 months for patients with clinical benefit, while OS for progressive patients was 3.1 months. PD-L1 expression and genomic abnormalities predictive of relapse after diagnosis of primary tumor were not associated with PFS. Toxicity was mild, without grade 3–4 side effects. Conclusions The efficacy of Pembrolizumab does not seem particularly different when compared to other agents for mUM, but responding patients had a remarkable disease control.

No standard treatment has been established for metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM). Immunotherapy is commonly used for this disease even though UM has not been included in phase III clinical trials with checkpoint inhibitors. Unfortunately, only a minority of patients obtain a clinical benefit with immunotherapy. The immunological features of mUM were reviewed in order to understand if immunotherapy could still play a role for this disease.

Uveal melanoma (UM) is characterized by relatively few, highly incident molecular alterations and their association with metastatic risk is deeply understood. Nevertheless, this knowledge has so far not led to innovative therapies for the successful treatment of UM metastases or for adjuvant therapy, leaving survival after diagnosis of metastatic UM almost unaltered in decades. The driver mutations of UM, mainly in the G-protein genes GNAQ and GNA11, activate the MAP-kinase pathway as well as the YAP/TAZ pathway. At present, there are no drugs that target the latter and this likely explains the failure of mitogen activated kinase kinase inhibitors. Immune checkpoint blockers, despite the game changing effect in cutaneous melanoma (CM), show only limited effects in UM probably because of the low mutational burden of 0.5 per megabase and the unavailability of antibodies targeting the main immune checkpoint active in UM. The highly pro-tumorigenic microenvironment of UM also contributes to therapy resistance. However, T-cell redirection by a soluble T-cell receptor that is fused to an anti-CD3 single-chain variable fragment, local, liver specific therapy, new immune checkpoint blockers, and YAP/TAZ specific drugs give new hope to repeating the success of innovative therapy obtained for CM.

Conjunctival melanoma (CjM) is a rare, primary cancer of the ocular region. Genetic and epigenetic characteristics of conjunctival melanoma have not been completely elucidated yet. Conjunctival melanoma presents similarities with cutaneous melanoma, with substantial differences in the biological behavior. We reviewed the genetic and epigenetic insights of CjM involved in invasion and metastatic spread. CjM is commonly characterized by mutations of v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF), neurofibromin 1 (NF1) and telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT), high expression of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), frequent phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss and upregulation of specific miRNAs. These features should identify CjM as a distinct subset of melanoma with its own profile, which is more similar to cutaneous melanoma than mucosal melanoma and remarkably different from uveal melanoma.