The success of immunotherapy in many disease entities is limited to a specific subpopulation of patients. To overcome this problem, dual blockade treatments mainly against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4) and programmed cell death receptor (ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1) axis were developed. However, due to high toxicity rates and treatment resistance, alternative pathways and novel strategies were desperately needed. Lymphocyte-associated gene 3 (LAG3) represents an inhibitory receptor, which is mainly found on activated immune cells and involved in the exhaustion of T cells in malignant diseases. Its co-expression with other inhibitory receptors, particularly with PD-1 leads to an extensive research on the blockade of LAG3 and PD-1 in preclinical settings. Interestingly, several in-vivo approaches demonstrated a highly significant clinical benefit under dual blockade, whereas the efficacy was very low in case of single agent targeting. Moreover, human tumour tissues showed co-expression of LAG3 and PD-1 in infiltrated lymphocytes, which again generated a rationale for blocking these both molecules in clinical settings. The ongoing clinical studies mainly use dual blockage of LAG3/PD-1, which demonstrated promising survival benefits and long duration of response rates. The following review focuses on the biological background and rationale of combining LAG3 with other agents and serves as an update on the state of clinical research on LAG3 targeting.

Background During the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare professionals (HCP) are at the frontline of clinical management and at increased risk for infection. The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of oncological HCP and their patients has significant implications for oncological care. Methods HCP and patients with cancer at the Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna were included between 21 March and 4 June and tested for total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 employing the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Reactive samples were confirmed or disproved by the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG test. Additionally, a structured questionnaire regarding basic demographic parameters, travel history and COVID-19-associated symptoms had to be completed by HCP. Results 146 subjects (62 HCP and 84 patients with cancer) were enrolled. In the oncological HCP cohort, 20 (32.3%) subjects were medical oncologists, 28 (45.2%) nurses at our ward and 14 (22.6%) fulfil other functions such as study coordinators. In the patient cohort, most individuals are on active anticancer treatment (96.4%). 26% of the HCP and 6% of the patients had symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19 since the end of February 2020. However, only in 2 (3.2%) HCP and in 3 (3.6%) patients, anti-SARS-Cov-2 total antibodies were detected. The second assay for anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG antibodies confirmed the positive result in all HCP and in 2 (2.4%) patients, suggesting an initial assay’s unspecific reaction in one case. In individuals with a confirmed test result, an active COVID-19 infection was documented by a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR test. Conclusion Specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found solely in persons after a documented SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, thus supporting the test methods’ high sensitivity and specificity. The low prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in our cohorts indicates a lack of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. It highlights the need for continued strict safety measures to prevent uncontrolled viral spread among oncological HCPs and patients with cancer.

The prognosis of advanced esophageal cancer is dismal, and treatment options are limited. Since the first promising data on second-line treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in esophageal cancer patients were published, immunotherapy was surmised to change the face of modern cancer treatment. Recently, several studies have found this to be true, as the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab have achieved revolutionary response rates in advanced as well as resectable settings in esophageal cancer patients. Although the current results of large clinical trials promise high efficacy with tolerable toxicity, desirable survival rates, and sustained quality of life, some concerns remain. This review aims to summarize the novel clinical data on immunotherapeutic agents for esophageal cancer and provide a critical view of potential restrictions for the implementation of these therapies for unselected patient populations.

Background: The clinical behaviour and outcome of young patients with gastroesophageal tumours (GET) is surmised to differ from older patients, yet data on the comparison of these two patient subgroups is scarce. This study focuses on the investigation of the clinical characteristics and survival outcome of younger-age people with GET, when compared to older patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with GET at the Medical University of Vienna between 2004 and 2016 were included in this study. Clinical parameters and the overall survival (OS) were compared between young (≤ 45 years) and elderly (≥ 65 years) patients. Results: Among 796 patients, who were eligible for this analysis, fifty-eight patients (7%) were ≤ 45 years at the initial onset of the disease. These 58 young patients were then matched to elderly patients based on the gender, tumour stage, histology and tumour location. The number of metastatic lesions was significantly higher among young patients (p < 0.05). In a non-metastatic setting younger patients showed a significant longer OS than older patients (median 1226 versus 801 days, p = 0.028). Furthermore, young patients with extensive metastatic disease (2 or more metastatic site) had a significantly poorer OS than elderly patients (median 450 versus 646 days, p = 0.033). Conclusion: These results indicate that young patients might be diagnosed very late, which might lead to the development of a more aggressive disease compared to older patients, but a relatively long OS when diagnosed and treated in a non-metastatic setting. Thus, screening methods for younger patients might be considerable to enhance the outcome of young patients with GET.

As endocrinological parameters such as thyroid hormones modulate proliferative, metabolic, and angiogenic pathways, it is surmised that their levels can be associated with cancer development and progression. Most patients with gastroesophageal cancer are diagnosed very late and have a poor prognosis, yet the association with endocrinological parameters has not been addressed so far. The aim of this study was to correlate hormones with the outcome, so new prognostic and potentially therapeutic markers can be defined. We analyzed clinical and endocrinological parameters including history of thyroid disorders and laboratory analyses of thyroid hormones and correlated these with the overall survival in a large European cohort of patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer treated between 2002 and 2018 at the Vienna General Hospital, Austria. In total, the survival outcome of 258 patients was evaluated. Higher levels of fT4 (p = 0.041, HR = 2.202) and lower levels of T3 (p = 0,003, HR = 0,141) were associated with significantly shorter survival. However, the overall survival of patients with known thyroid disorders did not differ significantly from euthyroid patients (euthyroid, 283 days; hyperthyroid, 354 days; hypothyroid, 284 days; p = 0.472). Elevated fT4 levels are associated with poorer overall survival of patients with gastroesophageal cancer in advanced stages. Since data on the correlation of endocrinological parameters and gastroesophageal cancer are scarce, this analysis is an important impulse for further studies concerning the impact of thyroxine on patients with cancer of the upper GI tract.

The treatment of metastasized gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma largely depends on molecular profiling based on immunohistochemical procedures. Therefore, the examination of HER2, PD-L1, and dMMR/MSI is recommended by the majority of clinical practice guidelines, as positive expression leads to different treatment approaches. Data from large phase-III trials and consequent approvals in various countries enable physicians to offer their patients several therapy options including immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or both combined with chemotherapy. The introduction of novel therapeutic targets such as CLDN18.2 leads to a more complex decision-making process as a significant number of patients show positive results for the co-expression of other biomarkers besides CLDN18.2. The aim of this review is to summarize the current biomarker landscape of patients with metastatic gastroesophageal tumors, its direct clinical impact on daily decision-making, and to evaluate current findings on biomarker co-expression. Furthermore, possible treatment strategies with multiple biomarker expression are discussed.